Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London Power Company Bill (by Order), Metropolitan Electric Supply Company Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

DEATH RATE, BOMBAY.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what was the Bombay city death rate in 1925 per 1,000 of adult and infant deaths, respectively; and how the figures compare with the average of recent years?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The report of the Health Officer of the city of Bombay for the last quarter of 1925 has not yet been received, but for the first three quarters the rates of both general and infant mortality show marked decreases on the corresponding figures for previous years. The death rate per 1,000 among the whole population during the first three quarters of the year was approximately at the rate of 26 per 1,000 per annum. The figure for 1924 was 31 .27 and the average for the preceding five years was 43 .79. The death rate per 1,000 among children under one year during the same period was at the rate of 388 per 1,000 registered births, as compared with the average per annum for the previous 10 years of 478 per 1,000.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Do the Government of India attribute this satisfactory result to the operation of the Bombay improvement scheme?

Earl WINTERTON: I should have to make inquiries upon that point. I think that is undoubtedly one of the factors showing a gratifying improvement, and I think it is due to the co-operation between the municipality and the Government of Bombay and also to the action of private individuals and associations.

CRAWLS, BOMBAY.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 3.
asked the Under-Secrtary of State for India what proportion of the new chawls built by the Bombay Government Development Department are still standing empty; what is the average rent per room of these tenements; and what is the reason given for the public not availing themselves of the opportunities thus offered to them for housing?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no recent information on the subject of the chawls in Bombay, but will make inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACHIMOTA COLLEGE, GOLD COAST.

Mr. HAYES: 7 and 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) the number of the staff appointed to the prospective college in the Gold Coast Colony; what are the emoluments of the members of the staff and at what periods are furloughs provided: and whether his approval was obtained for the engaging of a staff so many years before their services were likely to be required;
(2) whether the contract for the building of Achimota College, in the Gold Coast Colony, will be carried out by the original firm upon the terms of the contract, and when it is anticipated the college will be opened; and whether, seeing that the staff was appointed before the college was erected or pupils obtained, at a heavy charge on the revenues of the colony, and that there is no prospect of employing this staff until, at the earliest, 1927, he will consider the advisability of suggesting that the teachers should undertake some work in the existing educational institutions of the colony?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): With the hon. Member's permission. I will answer his
two questions together. The contract for the construction of Achimota College has been terminated and the work will be carried on by the Public Works Department of the Colony. It is hoped that a substantial portion of the work enabling some 200 pupils to be accommodated will be finished by November, 1927. The staff already engaged number 24, and their salaries for the first year total some £15,000. They will be given leave after 18 or 24 months, according to circumstances. As was explained by ray hon. Friend the Member for Stafford in his reply to the hon. Member on 7th December last, the staff were engaged with my approval and on the advice of my Advisory Committee, so that they might have a year or so to acquaint themselves with the language, customs and institutions of the people before they had to teach them. In view of the unfortunate delay in completing the college buildings, it has been found advisable to employ a number of the staff as teachers at the existing training college at Accra.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Is it not the case that the whole of the staff at present engaged at this college are working very hard, not only in training themselves, but in educational work on the spot?

Mr. AMERY: I think that is the case.

Mr. HERBERT: Is it not the rule of this House that hon. Members should make themselves responsible for the facts which are alleged in questions asked by them, and is it not especially desirable that this should be done in cases where ignorance of the facts leads to a slur upon a peculiarly devoted and hard-working public body of workers?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not read this question as containing any slur. As a matter of fact it has brought out a useful statement from the Minister.

Mr. HERBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am much obliged to the Minister for what he has said. What I was afraid of was that the suggestion in the question was that they were being paid when they had no work to do.

Mr. SPEAKER: The suggestion in the question is one which the Government have carried out already. The work they are doing has been stated.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS, AFRICA.

Mr. REMER: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the promises which have been made to the steel industry that the proposed loan for the development of East Africa will mean large orders for steel rails; and if he will take steps to ensure that these promises shall be fulfilled by inserting a condition in the loan that all materials for which the loan would be raised must be placed with British manufacturers?

Mr. AMERY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bodmin on the 8th of this month.

Sir F. WISE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the profits made by the Uganda Railway in 1923, 1924 and 1925; and what is the total profit since the line was opened?

Mr. AMERY: The net earnings have been as follow:



£


1923
415,351


1924
756,722


1925 (estimated)
778,623


1903–1925
4,444,286


These figures do not allow for depreciation, for which £489,109 has been set aside in the last three years, nor do they allow for loan charges, which at present amount to £484,812 a year, or for capital improvements met from revenue.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total mileage of railways laid in British territory in Africa, the gauge of the main lines and the subsidiary lines; has consideration been given to the advisability of securing uniformity of gauge, especially in regard to main lines; and will this policy be kept in view in connection with the construction of new lines that are contemplated by loans under guarantees by the Government, and thus obviate the difficulties that other parts of the Empire are experiencing from differences of gauge?

Mr. AMERY: With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the detailed figures asked for in the first part of his question. As regards gauge, the position broadly speaking, is that the West African and
South African railway systems are on the 3 feet 6 inch gauge, which is also the gauge of the Sudan railway. The Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika railways are on the metre gauge which is also the gauge in use on the Belgian and French possessions in Africa. The importance of uniformity of gauge first of all in the same geographical area and later when areas now separate become linked up will be carefully kept in mind but involves difficult problems.

Sir N. MOORE: Is it not customary in new railway construction that that fact should be borne in mind, so that provision may be made enabling widening from 3 ft. 3 ins. to 3 ft. 6 ins. to be carried out?

Mr. AMERY: That is a point which will have to be kept in mind.

Following are the figures promised:

Sierra Leone, 338 miles, all 2 ft. 6 ins. gauge.

Gold Coast and Nigeria, 1,659 miles, all 3 ft. 6 ins. gauge except for a 10 mile branch in the Gold Coast which is 2 ft. 6 ins. and a light branch railway of 143 miles on the same gauge in Nigeria.

Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, 2,117 miles, all metre gauge. Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia 635 miles, all 3 ft. 6 ins. gauge.

The island of Zanzibar, seven miles of 3 ft. gauge. Total mileage, as at 31st December, 1925, 4,756 miles.

Union of South Africa, including the mandated territory of South West Africa, 11,679 miles, 3 ft. 6 ins. gauge; Southern Rhodesia, 1,252 miles, 3 ft. 6 ins. gauge; Bechuanaland Protectorate, 403 miles, 3 ft. 6 ins. gauge.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND (LOAN).

Sir SYDNEY HENN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any part of the sum of £816,000 allocated to Nyasaland under the East African Protectorates Loans Act of 1914 has yet been raised; if so, how much has actually been expended in Nyasaland and for what purpose; and for what purpose or purposes the unexpended balance is available?

Mr. AMERY: Out of the total sum of £803,000 which the Government of Nyasaland is empowered to borrow from the Treasury under the East African Protectorates Loans Act of 1914 a sum of £40,000 has so far been advanced, together with a sum of £5,348 to cover interest for three years. Of the advance of £40,000, £8,416 has been spent on railway surveys, £6,108 on roads and £1,440 on interest. The balance of this advance, amounting to approximately £24,000, is available for expenditure on roads and telegraphs.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: What is the interest charged on that amount?

Mr. AMERY: It amounts to £5,000 for three years.

Sir F. WISE: What is the rate of interest charged?

Mr. AMERY: I should be glad if thy hon. Friend will ask a separate question on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

NATIVE EDUCATION.

Mr. THURTLE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total amount expended by the Government on native education in Kenya Colony; what is the percentage relation to revenue; and what proportion of this grant is paid to missionary societies?

Mr. AMERY: Apart from agricultural and veterinary training, the provision in the 1926 Estimates for native education is £47,941, or 2.4 per cent. of the estimate of actual revenue. Of this sum one-half represents grants to missionary societies, including grants for maternity and child welfare work.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it suggested that this sum is adequate to provide the necessary education?

Mr. AMERY: No. I think we shall steadily increase the amount available for that purpose.

KILINDINI HARBOUR (GOVERNMENT WHARF).

Mr. SNELL: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has granted, or proposes to grant, to private individuals or companies the right to conduct the unloading and loading of goods
at the new Government wharf at Kilindini Harbour, in Kenya; and will he state what kind of control is to be established?

Mr. AMERY: A portion of the new deep-water wharf became available as a lighter wharf in September last, and a temporary arrangement was made allowing the private lighterage companies to use it in the same way as the previously existing facilities. As regards the future control at the deep-water wharf, I am awaiting the Report of a local Commission of Inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAMBIA (MEDICAL AND SANITARY SERVICES).

Lieut.-Col. ANGUS McDONNELL: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the amount expended on administration, as apart from capital expenditure, of medical and sanitary services by the Government of the Gambia for the year 1924–25?

Mr. AMERY: The latest figures available are for the financial year 1924. The expenditure for that period was £21,180

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINIONS AND CROWN COLONIES. (EXCHEQUER EXPENDITURE AND BRITISH TRADE).

Lieut.-Col. McDONNELL: 13 and 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what was the total expenditure from Exchequer funds, made both at home and abroad in connection with the Crown Colonies, for the years 1903, 1913, 1923, and 1924; and what was the value of British exports sent to the Crown Colonies in the years 1903, 1913, 1923, and 1924;
(2) what was the total expenditure from Exchequer funds, made both at home and abroad, in connection with the Dominions for the years 1903, 1913, 1923, and 1924; and what was the value of exports of British manufacture to the. Dominions in those years?

Mr. AMERY: I will take these questions together, as I am not sure to what precise expenditure my hon. and gallant Friend refers in the first part of each question. If he will be so good as to communicate with me, I hope that I may be able to give answers next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (SOCIAL HYGIENE).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether action is being taken along the lines of any, and, if so, which of the recommendations of the first Report of the Advisory Committee on Social Hygiene, issued in 1925, as to the Straits Settlements?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir, action is being taken on the general lines suggested, but, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the fuller answer which I have had prepared for him.

Following is the answer:

I will take the Committee's recommendations seriatim. As regards the immigration of female with male Chinese, the Governor reports that the system in force is itself a direct encouragement of female immigration, and that for many years there has been a continued improvement in the sex ratio. The question of housing is receiving the constant attention of the Government and of the municipality. Education and recreational facilities have engaged the close attention of the Government for many years, and efforts will not be relaxed.

The Government has full information regarding the social and economic conditions of the poorer classes, and the suggested mixed Commission is therefore not thought necessary.

As regards medical measures, steps are being taken in organising the service on the lines suggested. Considerable facilities for free diagnosis and treatment already exist, and the accommodation for free treatment is shortly to be increased.

Finally, there are the legal and administrative recommendations. The Colonial Government aims at the disappearance of the brothel, but holds that progress must be gradual. It will be remembered that the Committee recognised immediate closing to be impracticable. In carrying out its policy the Government will give careful consideration to the suggestions and recommendations of the Committee. Close attention is being given to the suggestion for the increase of personnel and extension of the powers of the Chinese Protectorate, and provision will be made for such increases of staff as may from time to time be necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government has suggested to Hong Kong the formation of a corps of naval volunteers; and whether a similar movement is being promoted in other Colonies?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As stated in the answer to a similar question by the hon. Member on the 25th of May last, the question of forming a Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve at Singapore and at other places in Malaya is under consideration. I regret that I am not yet in a position to give any details of the scheme. I am in communication with the Admiralty as regards the possibility of adopting similar schemes in other Dependencies.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider offering enlistment to very loyal and seaman-like Chinese Colonists and not confining it to Europeans?

Mr. AMERY: That will certainly have to be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

MOSUL BOUNDARY.

Mr. THURTLE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the actual line held by the British troops in Iraq at the time of the Armistice was south of Mosul; and, if so, can he state on whose advice the line was moved further north beyond Mosul?

Mr. AMERY: The British forces were immediately to the south of Mosul at the moment of the Armistice, and occupied Mosul and other points in Mesopotamia in accordance with the terms of the Armistice.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the results of his conversations during the recent recess with the Turkish Ambassador regarding the Mosul boundary dispute?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): My conversations with the Turkish Ambassador led to the conclusion that His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople
should proceed to Angora in order to discuss matters further with the Turkish Government. As regards the present position of these negotiations, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith on 11th February.

ANGLO-IRAQ TREATY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister why the Anglo-Iraq Treaty is not to be brought before the House in the form of a Bill, as in the case of other important Treaties?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to him on 7th August, 1924, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) when Secretary of State for the Colonies. As the right hon. Gentleman then explained, legislation is necessary to give effect to certain Treaties, but not to others. The new Treaty with Iraq, like its predecessor, is one of those that do not require legislation.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement with the fact that this Treaty will mean an expenditure of money; and should there not be a Money Resolution?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will take care that my right hon. Friend who will speak on the subject next Thursday will give a full explanation.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (MILITARY STORES).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what was the total value of the arms and military and other stores handed over by Great Britain to the Irish Free State authorities; and whether the same have now been paid for?

Mr. AMERY: The estimated value of the arms, military and other stores handed over to the Irish Free State authorities is approximately £1,900,000. This amount is included in the figures given in Part II of Command Paper 2482, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. As stated in the note in that
Paper, no immediate cash payment is due from the Free State Government in respect of this property.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is that we are not to have a cash payment? Would it not be desirable, in connection with the economy campaign of the Government, to collect long outstanding debts?

Mr. AMERY: This is a matter that is covered by other arrangements.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also give attention to the collection of the £100,000,000 of debt handed over to Koltchak, Denikin and Yudenitch?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. HURD: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what has been the number of applicants for passages to Canada under the Anglo-Canadian Government scheme of cheap passages since its inception; how many have been accepted, rejected and suspended respectively; and, in the case of rejection, for what reason?

Mr. AMERY: The greatest number of applications are made at the local offices of the Canadian Government agents throughout the country, and only those which seem suitable for acceptance, having regard to the Canadian Government's requirements, are forwarded to the Director of Migration. Of the applications forwarded to the Canadian offices during the month of January (the first month in which the new scheme operated), particulars supplied to me by the High Commissioner are as follows:—Families, 1,003 applications, of whom 730 have been accepted; single men, 1,446 applications, of whom 270 have been accepted; women (household workers), 408 applications, of whom 106 have been accepted. The remaining applications are still under consideration.

Mr. HURD: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what are the restrictions upon British migration to Canada; in what respect there has been relaxation of these restrictions this season; and what effect has any such
relaxation had in encouragement of British settlement in the Dominion?

Mr. AMERY: There are no restrictions upon British migration to Canada except in the case of persons "prohibited" under the Canadian Immigration Laws, e.g., persons suffering from some mental or physical defect. But, in the case of assisted migration, the Dominion Government only accepts persons prepared to work on the land and women undertaking domestic service. In regard to persons willing to work on the land, the new Canadian Passage Agreement, which came into operation on 1st January, permits financial assistance to be given to a limited number of men who have no previous agricultural experience. It is at present too early to estimate the effect of the new Agreement.

Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion or percentage is applied to those who have not had previous agricultural experience?

Mr. AMERY: The number is limited, but I am afraid I could not give, at so early a date, a precise figure.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it correct that, in every case of non-assisted passages, it is essential that they should have a certain amount of money?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, some small amount of landing money is also required.

Mr. HURD: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is the percentage division of the passage money and after-care expense of migration to Canada under the cheap-passage scheme as between the British and Canadian Governments, the steamship companies, and the migrants, respectively?

Mr. AMERY: The proportions vary according to the migrant's destination, and the operation of the scheme can best be shown in the form of a table, which, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HURD: Do we pay more than Canada, or less?

Mr. AMERY: We pay rather less for those who land at Halifax, and rather more for those who go as far as Vancouver. The proportion varies in the way the totals are made up.

Following is the table promised:


STATEMENT OF PAYMENTS based on EXISTING SPECIMEN RATES (subject to Modification in the event of Alteration of Rates).


—
Total Cost.
Migrant.
Shipping Companies (Passage).
Dominion Government.
Secretary of State Contribution—


Passage.
Aftercare.
Against Passage.
Against Aftercare.






£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Halifax, St. John and Quebec.
18
15
0
3
0
0
3
10
0
3
10
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
1
15
0


Montreal—























Via Quebec
…
…
19
15
5
4
0
0
3
10
0
3
10
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
1
15
5


Via St. John or Halifax.
20
15
0
4
0
0
3
10
0
3
10
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
2
15
0


Toronto—























Via Quebec
…
…
21
17
1
4
10
0
3
10
0
3
10
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
3
7
1


Via St. John or Halifax.
22
7
11
4
10
0
3
10
0
3
10
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
3
17
11


Winnipeg
…
…
23
19
2
5
10
0
3
10
0
3
10
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
4
9
2


Regina
…
…
…
24
14
2
6
0
0
3
10
0
3
10
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
4
14
2


Moose Jaw
…
…
24
15
10
6
0
0
3
10
0
3
10
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
4
15
10


Saskatoon
…
…
25
1
8
6
0
0
3
10
0
3
10
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
5
1
8


Calgary or Edmonton
25
14
2
6
10
0
3
10
0
3
10
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
5
4
2


Vancouver
…
…
28
7
9
9
0
0
3
10
0
3
10
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
5
7
9

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH FILMS (DOMINIONS).

Captain EDEN: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any Dominion or State within a Dominion has enacted legislation making it compulsory to show a percentage of British films in cinemas within its territory?

Mr. AMERY: So far as I am aware, no such legislation has yet been passed in any of the Dominions or States.

Captain EDEN: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received any representations from Australia or from any other Dominion calling attention to the necessity for a larger supply of British films to be made available, and whether he will urge upon the Government the necessity for co-operating with the Dominions in any attempt to counteract the propaganda of the foreign film in all parts of the Empire?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, I am sure that the Government will be glad to give consideration to any proposals for co-operation with the Dominions with a view to the encouragement of British films.

Captain EDEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is a real concern in the Dominions as to the effect
of this foreign film propaganda, and would he not, perhaps, initiate an attempt to secure their co-operation?

Mr. AMERY: I am well aware that there is concern in the Dominions, and in this country too, and as I have said in my reply, we shall be very glad to co-operate, and to consider actively any methods of co-operation.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is there not throughout the Dominions a very strong feeling in favour of British films?

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES, JAPAN.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any subsidies are given by the Japanese Government to Japanese shipping lines carrying piece goods to the Indian markets; and whether the 10 per cent. Consumption Tax levied on all textile manufacturers in Japan is applicable to good, which are exported?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Japanese Government grants subsidies for certain mail services maintained by the principal Japanese steamship companies, but no direct subsidies are given for the services maintained between Japan and India. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: If there is no direct subsidy can the hon. Gentleman tell us if there is any indirect subsidy?

Mr. SAMUEL: This is a very intricate question. I have received from our Embassy at Tokio a long report, of which I hesitate to have copies made on the ground of expense, but, if I may be permitted to invite my hon. Friend to come into my room, I will show him the original document.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any progress was made during the recent Recess in regard to the disposal of the land and buildings which constituted the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley; and whether he has any statement to make upon the subject?

Mr. SAMUEL: I understand that the liquidators have lost no time in taking the necessary preliminary steps with a view to the disposal of the land and buildings at Wembley.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORT CREDITS (POLAND AND SERBIA).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 35 and 36.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department (1) in how many cases in 1925 the Export Credit Department gave credits for firms dealing with Poland; what was the amount of credit involved; how many applications were refused; and in how many cases, if any, was there any loss to the Department;
(2) in how many cases in 1925 the Export Credit Department gave credits for firms dealing with the kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; what was the amount of the credit involved; how many applications were refused; and in how many cases, if any, was there any loss to the Department?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have endeavoured to obtain the full information asked for by my hon. Friend, but regret that I have been unable to do so in the time available since the questions appeared on the Order Paper. In the circumstances, I should be glad if my hon. Friend would repeat his questions in a week's time.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-IMPERIAL TRADE (DUNEDIN EXHIBITION).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 37.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can give the House any particulars with regard to the recent exhibition in Dunedin, and state whether the expectations entertained with regard to its assistance in the development of inter-Empire trade have been justified?

Mr. SAMUEL: All reports received from Dunedin indicate that the exhibition now being held there has proved an unqualified success, and there is every reason to expect that it will exercise a beneficial influence on the development of inter-Imperial trade. I shall take the opportunity, in connection with the Estimate which comes before the House to-morrow, to make a fuller statement on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SMALLHOLDERS (LAND PURCHASE).

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of applications made by smallholders to purchase their holdings under the Small Holdings Act, 1908, and the Land Settlement Facilities Act, 1919?

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: 57.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the number of statutory smallholders who have purchased their small holdings under the Small Holdings Act, 1908, and under the Land Settlement Act?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): It is not possible to state the number of applications for purchase as distinct from actual purchases. The number of small holdings sold to the occupiers by county councils and councils of county boroughs under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, and the Small Holdings Act, 1892, which was repealed by that Act, up to the date of the passing of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, was 126. The number sold between that date and the 31st December, 1924, was 346. In addition, 182 small holdings were purchased by sitting tenants from their landlords with the aid of advances made by county councils under Section 19 of the Act of 1908.

Mr. BUXTON: Is it not the case that when a man applies for a smallholding he has to fill in a form stating whether he wishes to hire or to purchase, and, if the right hon. Gentleman has not the figures, will he take steps to get the county councils to furnish these figures, which would be of great interest on the question of the desire to purchase?

Mr. GUINNESS: I will see what can be got, but the right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the case of ex-service men settled on the land they cannot, I think, give notice to purchase until about six years after they have been on their holdings.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Is it the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to encourage these men to buy where possible?

Mr. GUINNESS: Certainly.

CO-OPERATIVE ENTERPRISES (LOANS).

Mr. BUXTON: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give the total amount of loans arranged under the Ministry's scheme of assistance to co-operative enterprises; and the number of co-operative enterprises which have been so assisted?

Mr. GUINNESS: Nine Societies have received loans, amounting to £31,670.

Mr. BUXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to continue the assistance to these societies that was begun under the last Government?

Mr. GUINNESS: Oh, yes, certainly.

LIME KILNS DISUSED.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the number of disused lime kilns in the country, and the importance, in the interests of agriculture, of re-opening them; and will he state the policy of the Government in regard to this matter?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am aware that, owing principally to the increased cost of labour, coal, and carriage, many lime kilns, which used to be worked economically, are now closed. Several schemes for stimulating the supply of lime for agricultural purposes have been considered, but would require such financial aid, and involve such interference with the ordinary course of trade, that I am
not prepared to put them forward. I would remind the hon. Member that loans may be made for the purchase of lime to farmers' societies formed under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, and I am sending him a copy of the leaflet on the subject.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, LINCOLNSHIRE.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease there have been in Lincolnshire in the last three months; where they have taken place; and whether the Ministry have been able to trace any connection between them?

Mr. GUINNESS: Five outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have been confirmed in Lincolnshire during the past three months—two at Baumber, one at Thornton, and two in the City of Lincoln. Between some of the cases there appears to be a connection sufficiently well defined to account for the spread of the infection. I will send my hon. Friend the result of the Ministry's inquiries on this point.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether a drastic reduction in the expenditure under this head might lead to a reduction in the spread of the disease?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not see how, when you seize a man's property in the public interest, you can do otherwise than pay him full value.

CREDIT FACILITIES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he intends to take to ensure that the maximum use shall be made of all cultivable land in this country after credit facilities have been provided?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement as to the terms on which additional credit will be provided.

LAND DRAINAGE SCHEMES.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 44.
also asked the Minister of Agriculture what provisions are laid down, if any, before spending national funds for the improvement of privately-owned land with regard to the future use of the land and regarding restrictions on the rent after improvement respectively?

Mr. GUINNESS: The only expenditure of the Ministry of the nature referred to by the hon. Member is in connection with the grants in aid of drainage schemes for the relief of unemployment. In these cases it is estimated that, owing to the conditions under which the work is carried out, the land is not likely to be increased in value by more than the amount of the cost falling on the owners and, consequently, no provisions of the kind he suggests have been considered necessary.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the land will be used after the drainage schemes have been carried out?

Mr. GUINNESS: Presumably it will enable the land to be cultivated, and without public assistance, some of this drainage would not in itself be economic under present marketing conditions. Without it the land would have gone out of cultivation.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Is it not the case that this expenditure is very largely for the purpose of removing a nuisance to the land in question, which is not the fault of the landowners, that is to say, clearing and making efficient the watercourses, which are not privately owned by them?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Since the land is privately owned, is it not the duty of the private landowner to remove any nuisance that there may be on it?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, because it is not in the power of the individual landowner to do so. None of these schemes are for the benefit of one landowner; they are always combined schemes which cannot be carried out without public action.

Mr. THURTLE: Will not the effect of these combined drainage schemes be to enhance the value of the land of these landowners?

Mr. GUINNESS: Not even in proportion to the amount which the landowner has to contribute. The reason why no provision is made for taking control of the land is that it is believed, and it is borne out by experience, that the landowner does not raise his rent even by the amount which represents the
interest on the capital which he has to contribute towards the drainage.

Mr. MACLEAN: What proportion of the expenditure is borne by the landowner, and what proportion by public funds?

Mr. GUINNESS: It varies according to the scheme.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an actual statement as to what it is, if not now, later on?

Mr. GUINNESS: I should have to have notice.

Mr. MACLEAN: I will give you notice.

CREDIT FACILITIES BILL.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 53.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when he is likely to introduce his Bill embodying new credit facilities for agriculture; and can he state in what direction these facilities are an improvement on existing Credit Acts?

Mr. GUINNESS: I regret that I am not yet in a position to give any date for the introduction of whatever legislation may be necessary to carry out the new proposals of the Government for providing credit facilities for agriculture. In regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to a Report on Agricultural Credit, issued on the 11th instant, which explains the need for an improvement of the existing facilities.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the improvement will be on the lines of the Report?

Mr. GUINNESS: Not necessarily.

Mr. HURD: Are we sure to have this Bill this Session?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have every hope that we shall be able to introduce it without any great delay.

SUGAR BEET.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many new sugar beet factories will be ready for the 1926 crop, and where are they, respectively, situated?

Mr. GUINNESS: The following six beet sugar factories are expected to
work their first manufacturing season in 1926–27:

Spalding (erected in 1925),
Peterborough,
Poppleton (near York),
Felstead, Essex,
Earlestown (Lancs.),
Cupar, Fifeshire.

It is possible that two further factories may be erected this year at Bardney, Lincolnshire, and Frimley, Surrey.

Colonel BURTON: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Research Monograph No. 3 of the Agricultural Economics Research Institute of the University of Oxford, entitled Sugar Beet—the Results of an Inquiry into the Costs of Production, Yields and Returns in 1924, has been issued under the authority of the Ministry; and whether the Ministry accept responsibility for the statements and declarations contained in this document?

Mr. GUINNESS: The monograph was published by the Ministry, but the responsibility for statements made and opinions expressed in it rests with the authors (whose names are given on the title page), not with the Ministry.

SHEEP DIPPING (MORTALITY).

Sir W. de FRECE: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of sheep which died in this country as a result of the dipping process during the last 12 months; and whether there is any control by the Ministry over the nature of the dips used?

Mr. GUINNESS: As the reply is rather long, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Six hundred and twenty-eight sheep have been reported to the Ministry during the past 12 months as having died as the result of dipping. Of this number, 594 were dipped in arsenical dips; 13 were dipped in an arsenical dip for the first dipping, but in a non-poisonous dip for the second dipping. In 21 cases the Ministry has no information as to the dip used.

Dips used for the purpose of dipping in order to comply with the Orders of
the Ministry or regulations of local authorities relating to sheep scab are required to be approved for that purpose by the Ministry, and no dip is approved unless a sample has been examined and found to be effective for the destruction of the sheep scab acarus. When a dip has been approved all packages placed on sale to the public are required to bear a label stating the fact that it has been so approved and the dilutions at which it is approved by the Ministry for use under the Sheep Scab Orders.

The Ministry takes no responsibility for losses occasioned to sheep through dipping in poisonous dips. The choice of any particular dip rests with the owner of the sheep, and there are a large number of non-poisonous dips available for selection.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY (INTER-ALLIED ASSESSMENT CONVENTION).

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that unless diplomatic action is taken immediately financial losses and a miscarriage of justice will result to British business men, and to British claimants generally, under the Inter-Allied Assessment Convention, in relation to the assessment and reparation of damage suffered in Turkey; that, notwithstanding that such claimants have been officially assured here that their complaints against the decisions and practice of the Inter-Allied Commission constitute a prima facie case, His Majesty's Government has refused to receive a deputation of such claimants, and has referred them to the Commission, who has refused to give information and proper access; what steps has the Government already taken, or is proposing to take, to protect the interests of its nationals; and will he state whether the functions of the British delegate are judicial or to advocate British claims, or both?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): Under the Convention of 23rd November, 1923, relative to the Assessment and Reparation of Damage suffered in Turkey (Command Paper 2028), an inter-Allied Commission was set up to assess the damages suffered by British, French, Italian and Japanese nationals in Turkey,
and to distribute the compensation fund to the parties concerned in proportion to the damage suffered by them. The Convention provides that the Commission shall lay down its procedure, and that its decisions shall be final; accordingly any representations which claimants desire to make in regard to the assessment of claims must be made to the Commission, and His Majesty's Government is not in a position to intervene. For this reason no official assurance on behalf of His Majesty's Government was, or could be, given to the claimants, who have recently made representations in regard to decisions of the Commission, as to the justification for their complaints; and they have in all cases been referred to the Commission, which alone is in a position to deal with the matter. I am informed that it is not the case that claimants have been refused information to which they are entitled, or proper access. Although the functions of the Commission are judicial, and it is not the duty of the national delegates to act as advocates of national claims, I understand that the British delegate gives British claimants every assistance in his power in regard to the presentation of their claims, and for this purpose he is ready to consider any representations in writing, supplemented, if necessary, by personal interview. It must, however, be pointed out that the Commission is required by this Convention to follow a procedure which will ensure the prompt settlement of claims, and that it has some 15,000 claims before it; accordingly, it is impossible for the Commission to give a formal hearing to all claimants, or even to the majority.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: Is the recently appointed delegate of the Commission bound in any way by the decision given by his predecessor on that Committee?

Mr. McNEILL: I could not answer without notice.

Sir S. HENN: Would the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs be willing to receive a deputation on this subject?

Mr. McNEILL: My hon. Friend had better put that question to the Foreign Secretary.

Sir F. WISE: Who pays the expenses of this Commission?

Mr. McNEILL: I could not answer without inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to give an opportunity to discuss the Anglo-Italian debt settlement; and whether a statement explanatory of the settlement is to be made to Parliament on behalf of His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The agreement with the Italian Government has already been laid before the House (Command Paper 2580). If there is a general desire for discussion notified through the usual channels, I should be glad to arrange for it to take place either on the Consolidated Fund Bill or at some other convenient occasion.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question, whether a statement will be made on behalf of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: Obviously.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 82.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present state of the negotiations with the Government of the French Republic for the payment of the debts owed by France to this country; and whether any representations have been received from the French Government for a re-opening of the question of the rate of payments since the terms of the Anglo-Italian debt settlement were published?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on Wednesday last to the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) of which I am sending him a copy. The answer to the last part of the present question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE (DISINTERESTED MANAGEMENT).

Mr. W. BAKER: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the meetings of the Southborough Committee on Disinterested Management are being held in private; and whether, having regard to the public interest in this question, he will consider the desirability of making the suggestion to the Committee that future sittings should be held in public?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Whether the meetings of a Committee shall be held in public or in private is a matter for the Committee itself to decide, and the Committee to which the hon. Member refers decided that their meetings should be held in private.

Mr. BAKER: Does it mean that the evidence presented to the Committee will not be available to the public when the Report appears?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, it does not necessarily mean that. The evidence will be submitted to me, and when the Report is published I shall consider whether it is desirable to publish the evidence.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT RESTRICTION ACTS.

Sir W. de FRECE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, before reaching a decision in respect of the cessation or the continuance of the Rent Restriction Acts, he proposes to hold a public inquiry into the operation of these Measures; and, if so, when he proposes to set it on foot?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not propose to hold any such inquiry at present. I would point out that the existing restrictions continue in force until December, 1927.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Mr. THURTLE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Committee of Imperial Defence has any permament members; and if this Committee has any executive powers?

The PRIME MINISTER: Under the terms of the original Treasury Minute of 4th May, 1904, the Committee of Imperial Defence
consists of the Prime Minister with such other Members as, having regard to the nature of the subject to be discussed, he may from time to time summon to assist him.
At the present time the membership is as follows:

The Prime Minister.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
1528
The Lord President of the Council (the founder of the Committee in its present form).
The Lord Privy Seal (who was Chairman of the important Sub-Committee of 1923).
The Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Colonies.
The Secretary of State for War.
The Secretary of State for India.
The Secretary of State for Air.
The First Lord of the Admiralty.
The Chiefs of Staff of the three Fighting Services.
The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, as head of the Civil Service.

The Committee is a consultative and advisory body, and has no executive powers.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Can the Prime Minister vary the Committee at any moment?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think I have that power.

Mr. THURTLE: Are we to understand that there are no members on that Committee who can be considered as permanent members?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the only permanent member, as I read that Minute, is the Prime Minister for the time being.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is there any constitutional foundation for the phrase, "The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury as the head of the Civil Service"? Is it not the case that the only head of the Civil Service of this country is His Majesty the King?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to consider that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — DENTISTS ACT, 1921.

Mr. BARNES: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Section 5 of the Dentists Act, 1921, is operating in such a manner as to exclude corporate bodies of working-class constitution whose boards of management do not include qualified dentists from supplying dental service to their members; and whether he will introduce legislation which will remove this exclusion?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend understands that there is nothing in this Section, as interpreted hitherto, to prevent any co-operative society or similar body from arranging for the dental treatment of its members, provided it does not seek any profit in so doing; and he cannot see any necessity for amending legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE GRANTS, SCOTLAND.

Captain STREATFEILD: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the recommendation of the Scottish Agricultural Conference, 1925, respecting drainage grants, he has considered the question of the provision of lime in conjunction therewith?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I have been asked to reply. The question of assistance in the provision of lime has been under consideration, but no decision has yet been reached.

Captain STREATFEILD: 60.
also asked bow many applications for drainage grants were received from farmers in Kirkcudbrightshire and Wigtownshire during the year 1925; whether any of these were rejected; and, if so, how many?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have been asked to reply. The numbers of such applications received from farmers in Kirkcudbrightshire and Wigtownshire respectively were 63 and 79. Of these nine from Kirkcudbrightshire and nine from Wigtownshire have been rejected.

Oral Answers to Questions — KEW GARDENS (PRICES OF ADMISSION).

Sir N. MOORE: 61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the recent increase in the price of admission to Kew Gardens; and whether he will, if not able to reinstate the previous conditions of admittance, at least reduce the price governing the admission of young children and those in charge of them?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, Sir. The recent reimposition of the penny admission fee was made on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates, who pointed out that the abolition of the charge in April, 1924, had resulted in a loss to the Revenue of about £5,000 a year without, apparently, any appreciable increase in the number of visitors to the gardens. In the circumstances, I regret that I do not see my way to comply with either of the suggestions made by my hon. Friend in the second part of his question.

Sir N. MOORE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a charge or 4d. for a woman who takes her baby into Kew Gardens, as against 3d. charged before, is likely to add to the revenue?

Mr. GUINNESS: There was a charge of 3d. for a perambulator, even when the public were admitted free. If we left the price for a perambulator at 3d. and 1d. was charged to the public, it would mean that the attendant on the perambulator would get in for nothing.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (SALES ABROAD).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 62.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can give any recent instances of sales of Government property abroad, detailing the prices obtained by the sale as compared with the amount paid upon purchase?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household—for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact—it is only fair to the officials of this Department to ask—that they have made many good bargains for this country in all parts of the world?

Following is the reply:

Sales of British Government properties abroad are comparatively infrequent, but
the following are the chief instances which have occurred in recent years:



Cost.



£


Kobe Consulate.—Half the site sold in 1919 for £38,835
1,700


Osaka Consulate.—Sold in 1920 for £23,000
7,119


Bangkok Legation.—Greater portion of site sold in 1922 for £117,000 in cash, and a site valued at £11,000
6,650


Washington Embassy.—Sold in 1924 for $500,000 (£102,607)
33,663


Shanghai Post Office.—Sold in 1924 for £44,000
9,607


Shanghai Gaol.—Sold in 1925 For £46,300
27,337

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD PRICES (TRADERS' BOOKS).

Mr. REMER: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government has given any undertaking to the Food Council that legislation will be introduced to force traders to submit their books to the Council?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The Prime Minister has already informed the House that if at any time the Government are convinced that any form of action to assist the Food Council is necessary, they will take that action, whatever legislation may be involved. No other undertaking of the kind suggested has been given.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does not the hon. Member consider that the work of the Food Council is becoming very much of a farce in that its findings are not becoming operative in the country?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (FLOWER MAKERS).

Mr. REMER: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the application of the flower makers under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and that his Department asked this association to prove the excess of imports over the year 1913; if he is aware that the largest importing firms in this trade have their goods sent
to this country by parcels post, and that it is impossible to ascertain the value of these goods; and if, in these circumstances, he will grant an immediate inquiry under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 4th February to the hon. Member for the Western Isles, of which I am sending him a copy. I may add that where for valid reasons applicants are unable to submit precise statistical evidence, it is open to them to submit such other evidence as may be available in support of their case.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

ADMISSION TO LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the official application from the German Reich for admission to the League of Nations has been received at Geneva; whether it is proposed to call an ad hoc meeting to carry out this request; and whether any date for the meeting has yet been suggested?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A special meeting of the Council was held on 12th February which decided to call a special meeting of the Assembly for 8th March to consider Germany's application.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman remove considerable apprehension both here and abroad by stating that His Majesty's Government are opposed to any considerable increase in the Council of the League?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I had a question put to me on that subject last week by the Leader of the Opposition, and I made a considered reply. I then expressed the hope that I might not be asked any further questions on the subject until shortly before I go to Geneva.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the application of Germany will be considered separately from the application of other States?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer for the League of Nations in the specific way that I can speak for the Foreign Office.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What about the French Foreign Office?

ARMIES OF OCCUPATION.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, now that the British Army of Occupation on the Rhine has been transferred to the extent of 8,000 troops to part of the area hitherto occupied by France, there has yet been any corresponding reduction in the French army of occupation?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Before the evacuation of the Cologne zone, on 1st October, the figures were as follow:


British
9,000


French
73,100


Belgian
17,100


On 1st February, that is immediately after the evacuation of that zone, the figures—which should for the moment be regarded as approximate only—were as follow:


British
7,800


French
59,000


Belgian
7,500

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (SHAMEEN INCIDENT).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the Shanghai precedent, there has been any public expression of regret at the loss of life in the Shameen shootings; and whether any proposal has been made in the official or unofficial negotiations regarding the Canton boycott of any ex gratia. payment as a mark of sympathy with the wounded and with the relatives of those killed at Shameen?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The incident at Shameen differed from that at Shanghai. It was the result of an unprovoked attack by armed Chinese military cadets or soldiers who opened fire upon the foreign concession, foreigners being killed and wounded. The foreign troops in the concession returned the fire, and Chinese military and civilians
were killed. On 11th July His Majesty's Consul-General wrote to the Canton Commissioner for Foreign Affairs expressing heartfelt sympathy with the parents and relatives of the victims of the incident. So far as I am aware, the question of compensation in respect of casualties at Shameen has not been raised by the Cantonese in any recent discussion on the subject of the boycott directed against Hongkong.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the version of the facts which he has given is disputed from the Chinese side? Has there been any inquiry which justifies the right hon. Gentleman in stating the facts as he has stated them with such assurance?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Anyone can dispute anything, but I think the facts I have stated are correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS AND VISAS.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the revenue last year derived from the issue of passports and visas, respectively; what was the expense incurred in that issue; and can any estimate be made of the expense incurred by British subjects in obtaining foreign visas?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The sum received in respect of passport fees in 1924–25 was £106,756, while the sum of £136,630 was collected by passport control officers abroad in respect of visas. In addition an amount which is included in the general receipts from consular fees and which cannot be stated separately was levied by consular officers for this service. The cost of the Passport Office for the year in question was £73,700, and of the Passport Control Service £41,646. It is not possible to form any estimate of the expenses incurred by British subjects in obtaining foreign visas.

Sir M. CONWAY: Is it not a fact that it has been officially stated often on behalf of the Government that it is not the desire of the Government to raise revenue out of fees for passports and visas, and can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, having regard to the considerable profit which seems to be disclosed
by these figures, it is the intention of the Government to make any reduction in the cost to persons desiring passports or visas?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer as to what has been frequently stated on behalf of different Governments, without notice. I should be sorry to say that it was contrary to the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get a little revenue where he can, without injury to public affairs. I doubt whether any reduction is possible without laying the State open to a charge which ought not to fall upon it.

Oral Answers to Questions — DODECANESE (INTERNATIONAL STATUS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present international status of the Dodecanese; and whether Italy is under any obligation to hand over these islands to Greece?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The international status of the Dodecanese is now governed by Article 15 of the Treaty of Lausanne, in virtue of which Turkey renounced in favour of Italy all her rights and title over the islands. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL-POX.

Sir W. DAVISON: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give the House any information as to the progressive increase of small-pox in this country since the War; and whether such increase coincides with a like increase in the number of persons who are not protected by vaccination?

Sir K. WOOD: The number of cases of small-pox in England and Wales has increased from 311 in 1919 to approximately 5,300 in 1925. My right hon. Friend has no information as to the number of persons who are not protected by vaccination, but there can be little doubt that it has been steadily increasing since the War, although it is generally found that considerable numbers of persons present themselves for vaccination when any serious outbreak of small-pox takes place.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will my hon. Friend say whether the Ministry proposes
to issue a circular leaflet or something of the kind, urging upon the public the desirability of protecting themselves from small-pox by vaccination, in view of the startling figures which he has just given?

Sir K. WOOD: My hon. Friend knows that the Minister of Health has repeatedly in this House given advice with reference to vaccination. I will put before him the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Sir H. CRAIK: Does the Minister not think that the time has come to take steps by legislative force for protecting the people from the spread of a practice which is dangerous to the whole community?

Mr. AMMON: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the great increase of small-pox is not in that area in Durham which has been afflicted by the recent economic trouble?

Sir K. WOOD: No, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health gave the figures the other day, and no one should be under the misapprehension that the industrial dispute in that area had anything to do with the prevalence of smallpox.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that in the whole of these districts very great poverty and want have been experienced, and that small-pox, like any other disease, grows in intensity according to the poverty of the people it attacks?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman knows, from the figures that were given to him the other day, that in the particular districts concerned, there was a smaller number of small-pox cases than in other districts where there was less unemployment.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that the whole of the county of Durham is suffering from very severe unemployment?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, but in the particular districts affected by unemployment the small-pox was less than in other districts.

Oral Answers to Questions — VACCINATION (STATISTICS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 72.
asked the Minister of Health if he can give the House any statistics as to the number of infant
children who are unvaccinated; and what was the percentage of children born who were vaccinated in 1925 and 1905, respectively?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has no information as to the number of infant children living to-day who are unvaccinated. The last year for which complete information relating to the vaccination of infants is at present available is 1923. In that year 758,404 births were registered in England and Wales, and of these 395,553 had not been vaccinated by the 31st January, 1925. The percentage of vaccinations to births in 1923 was 47.8, and the corresponding percentage for 1905 was 75.8.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the question whether the change in the form of registration of births made by the late Government has been responsible for a considerably larger number of children than before not being vaccinated?

Sir K. WOOD: I will look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1925.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 74.
asked the President of the Board of Education, with reference to inspectors and organisers who are eligible for pension under the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1925, whether a person who has held the position of a certificated teacher since 1902, an assistant master eight years and headmaster 12 years, or a district education secretary, and who now is assistant administrative officer under a local education authority, will be eligible for pension?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): On the assumption that he has the necessary qualifying teaching service, the eligibility of such an officer to be treated as in pensionable contributory service under the Act of 1925, depends upon the extent to which his duties involve the control and supervision of teachers. My right hon. Friend is obtaining from local authorities the information necessary to enable him to review the question systematically, and
every such officer will have an opportunity of applying to be treated as a pensionable organiser.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

WAR OFFICE (OUT-STATIONS CLERICAL STAFFS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the position of the clerical staffs of the outstations of the War Department has been brought to his notice; whether he is aware that, although five years have elapsed since the Reorganisation Committee Report recommended that clerical pay should rise to a maximum of £250 a year, not 5 per cent. of the clerical employés in the out-stations have been put on a scale rising to £250; whether anything has been done towards the reorganisation of the out-stations, as recommended by the Reorganisation Committee Report; and whether steps will be taken to improve the opsition of these employés in accordance with the terms of the Report?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that the Re-organisation Committee recommended that all clerical work in outstation offices should be paid on a scale rising to £250, which with Civil Service bonus amounts to £369 a year. The bulk of the work at out-station offices is of a routine nature, and I am not prepared to agree that pay up to £7 a week is warranted for any considerable proportion of the staff. I explained the scheme of re-organisation which is being applied to these offices in my answer on the 8th December last to a question by the hon. Member for Limehouse.

FURNITURE.

Sir F. WISE: 85.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount spent by the Government in 1913–14 on furniture and the estimated amount in 1925–26, respectively?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON: The expenditure on furniture by the Office of Works for the Civil Departments in 1913–14 was, approximately, £168,000. The estimated expenditure for 1925–26 is £310,000. I will forward to the hon.
Member details of expenditure by other Departments.

CIVIC SERVANTS (PAY).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 87.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, how many civil servants there are in the Government service; how many of these receive less than £3 a week, and how many less than £4 a week; and whether those receiving these sums are doing clerical or manual labour?

Mr. McNEILL: As stated in reply to the hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir W. de Frece), on 26th November, 1925, it is estimated that out of a total non-industrial staff of, approximately, 300,000, about 225,000 receive less than £4 a week. These figures cover all non-industrial grades and include manipulative staff, messengers, etc., as well as clerical grades. Part-time staff are also included. The industrial staffs number about 125,000, of whom the large majority receive less than £4 a week. Information regarding the number -of civil servants in receipt of less than £3 a week is not avail able.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: With reference to the figure of those receiving less than £4 given by the right hon. Gentleman, is that sum inclusive of bonus?

Mr. McNEILL: I think so, but I am not quite certain on which basis the calculation has been made. I will let the hon. Member know.

CIVIL SERVICE SPORTS GROUNDS.

Mr. REMER (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that a large number of Members take strong exception to the fact that in existing financial conditions the Foreign Secretary should have announced at the Civil Service banquet that the Government are making a grant of £200,000 for sports grounds for the Civil Service; and if he will give an undertaking that no immediate grant will be made until the House has had an opportunity of expressing its views upon the subject.

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend must surely be aware that the grant of this money is dependent on the authority of Parliament, and that the House will have full opportunity of expressing its views in connection with the
Estimate for the first instalment of £150,000, which will be presented in the ordinary form for 1926–27. I take the occasion of my hon. Friend's question to remind him that every good employer of labour nowadays makes provision for the recreation of his employés, and that the civilian employés of the Crown, who include over 300,000 industrial and manipulative workers, apart from the clerical establishments, have so far enjoyed the distinction of being practically alone in receiving no such consideration from their employer, that is, from Parliament.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: With reference to the Prime Minister's allusion to private employers, is he aware that many employés of the Government are considerably worse off in other directions, particularly in the fact that they do not get any holidays at all except those for which they pay; and is it the fact that this applies to the whole of the industrial staff?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be very much better that civil servants should play games and engage in sports among their fellow citizens rather than that they should be segregated into a class by themselves?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: In view of the fact that so many of these Estimates are liable to come under the Guillotine, may we have some guarantee that we shall have a chance to debate this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should like nothing better. I will see that it is done.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Quite apart from the merits of the grant, may I ask whether the Prime Minister does not think it would have been more proper and more in accordance with constitutional practice, if the announcement had first been made to this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: No; I see nothing improper in a Minister of the Crown making an announcement at a large gathering of civil servants of what he proposes to bring forward in Parliament. The authority of Parliament is not impaired.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does it not tend to place hon. Members who wish to vote against this sum in an invidious position, and in view of the fact that the
Government have pronounced in favour of it, have they not made it difficult for hon. Members, if they so desire, to vote against it?

Oral Answers to Questions — SILICOSIS.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 76.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can see his way to introduce amending legislation with regard to compensation for silicosis under the Refractories Industries (Silicosis) Scheme and, in particular, those clauses which deal with workers who have been employed for 20 years in industries where this disease is liable to be contracted and who, after 20 years' employment or more, have left the industry?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A workman who has left the industries can apply for compensation at any time if totally disabled by silicosis. In the case of partial incapacity the claim must be made within one month after he has left the employment. In view of the great difficulties in dealing with claims which are put forward long after the employment has ceased, these provisions seem to me very favourable to the workmen, and the Departmental Committee, which recently inquired into the working of the scheme, made no recommendation for any alteration. I am not prepared, therefore, as at present advised, to propose any amendment.

Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in several cases of the kind, men who have been in employment for more than 20 years in this industry have contracted this disease, and that the local doctors have certified that it was due to their work in that industry?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have received two deputations recently from the trade in regard to this very complicated illness, and my Department and myself are watching it very carefully with a view to taking whatever steps are necessary to improve the position.

Mr. SMITH: 77.
also asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, during 1924, 673 examinations of silicosis were made in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and that in one area alone, that of Wadsley Bridge, 547 workers suffering from this disease, taken from
local brick works, quarries, and mines were examined; and whether he is satisfied with the conditions under which these workers have been occupied?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Under the scheme all the workers have to be examined periodically, and the figures he gives are the numbers so examined. I am informed that out of the 547 persons examined in the Wadsley Bridge area, only 15 were certified to be suffering from silicosis. Special Regulations for the prevention of the disease have been put in force in these works, and I am advised that the conditions have greatly improved. This point will continue to receive the special attention of the Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — MADAME LENIN.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: 78.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the application of Madame Lenin to enter and reside in this country; and what steps he intends to take in this event?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no knowledge of any such application, and I cannot undertake to forecast the decision if and when the application be made.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: Does my right hon. Friend not think that there are enough unemployed in this country without the presence of this lady?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no idea that she has applied.

Mr. MAXTON: Should this application reach the right hon. Gentleman, will he treat it as he would treat any similar application from any person of the same standing in any other country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The application, if it come, will be treated on its merits.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA (SEIZED DOCUMENTS).

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: 79.
asked the Home Secretary when he will be able to publish some of the documents recently seized at the Communist headquarters?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am reviewing the documents in question with a view to deciding how far publication would be useful, and there will be no delay in dealing with the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN VISITORS (PERMITS).

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: 80.
asked the Home Secretary whether passports have been issued to the following people: Alexander Ivanovich Mancho, Philip Rabinovich, Leo Rabinovich, Boris Malzmann, Reuben Terakopoff; and, if so, for what purposes they are resident here; whether they are liable for Income Tax; and for how long they have been given leave to stay?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This question appeared on the Paper for the first time on Saturday morning, and it has been impossible, in the short time available for inquiry, to collect the detailed information asked for. I will look into the matter and communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In any case, may I ask why this information should be given? Why is it necessary to explain why visas have been given to people to come here, if the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied? Has he not answered me that he is satisfied in certain cases and that he will give me no information? Why should special information be given to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has asked this question?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and gallant Friend has not yet received any information from me. I have told him that I will look into the matter and communicate with him. I do not say what I will tell him.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: With my right hon. Friend's permission, I will put the question on the Paper again next week.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to understand that any hon. Member who cares to put a question of this character can get private information sent to him by any Cabinet Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not at all fond of this sort of question myself. I
remember several, from my left, relating to the admission of foreign musicians.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that to similar questions in the past information has been refused. We were told that it was the Department's prerogative, and that that was the end of it.

Mr. MACLEAN: We have just heard from the Home Secretary that he will communicate with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who put this question. If a Cabinet Minister can send on information that is looked upon as private and confidential in his particular Department, it should be provided for any hon. Member. Is it not in the public interest that the information should be given in this House?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and gallant Friend has asked that he might put his question in the House next week, and the answer will then be given in the House.

Mr. MACLEAN: It was the Home Secretary's reply to the first question put with which I was dealing.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is a common and useful practice to send information to an hon. Member, but if there be a desire that it should be done, the Minister always accedes to the request that the information should be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Oral Answers to Questions — BARNBOW MUNITION FACTORY (COMPENSATION).

Mr. LUNN: 86.
asked the. Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that a claim for £26,000 was recently made to the War Compensation Court by Colonel Gascoigne, of Parlington Park, Aberford, for the existence of the Barnbow munition factory on part of his estate; as the matter has since been settled out of court, will he state what is the amount to be paid to Colonel Gascoigne to settle his claim; and whether or not the amount paid to meet this particular claim is the whole of what has been, or is to be, paid to Colonel Gascoigne in connection with this munition factory?

Mr. McNEILL: The detailed claim originally submitted by Colonel Gascoigne
to the War Compensation Court in respect of reinstatement of land, &c., amounted to £52,963. Subsequently Colonel Gascoigne decided to proceed not before the War Compensation Court, but before the Railway and Canal Commission, to which he submitted a claim amounting to £38,919 18s. 6d. After the case had been partially heard by the Commission, a settlement was arrived at under which Colonel Gascoigne receives a sum of £6,920, which includes all his costs, and is given railway sidings on the land and sundry buildings estimated to be worth £4,580. There is still one small matter outstanding in respect of a railway halt on Colonel Gascoigne's land, which was taken under agreement and not under the Defence of the Realm Act. This did not come within the jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission, but forms the subject of negotiation between the Department and Colonel Gascoigne.

Mr. LUNN: Is the £6,000 which has been paid to Colonel Gascoigne the full sum which he will receive for the use of this land for the Barnbow munition factory?

Mr. McNEILL: As far as I am aware that is so, but I would not like to pledge myself without first having notice of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNCLASSIFIED ROADS, SCOTLAND.

Sir HARRY HOPE: 88.
asked the Minister of Transport if Scotland is to receive the same grant for specially selected unclassified roads as is to be allocated to such roads in England and Wales; and, if so, what will be the amount of the grant?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The special provision during 1926–27 of £750,000 for unclassified roads in rural areas is limited to England and Wales, as assistance to rural areas in Scotland, on at least an equivalent scale, is rendered under other heads.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).

The following question stood on the Order Paper in, the name of Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE:
81. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to a resolution by the National Chamber of
Trade, in June last, urging that, in view of the many financial demands made upon the business community during the month of January, the date for payment of the annual tax in respect of registration of motor vehicles or Road Fund licences, should be changed to May or June; and whether he is prepared to transfer the date for payment accordingly.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: On a point of Order. May I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can reply to this question, which is addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Apparently the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not able to make a reply.

Mr. McNEILL: I am informed that this question is to be answered by the Minister of Transport.

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no information on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPS' WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTE).

Mr. T. KENNEDY (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the negotiations between the parties to the marine wireless dispute have completely broken down; whether this is due solely to the employers adamantly insisting upon the reduction in wages as a preliminary to a resumption of work; whether this leaves the position precisely as it was on 26th November last; and whether, in view of the fact that both parties have signified their agreement to submitting the case to a court of inquiry under the Industrial Courts Act, and that the position at sea is full of anxiety due to a violation of the law, he will establish a court of inquiry without further delay?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I regret to say that the negotiations for a settlement of this dispute have not so far succeeded in ending the dispute. There have been considerable developments since 26th November. For instance, both sides have agreed to discuss a complete revision of wages and conditions, and have accepted the principle of settlement by arbitration in the absence of agreement. The points at issue have been narrowed down to two. The union were willing to accept the reduction of wages as from the date of the resumption of work, but were
not willing that it should date back to 1st December, as asked by the employers. The other point is the re-instatement of men on strike. The association asked for the immediate re-engagement of all the men on strike. The employers state that this is impossible; they offered re-engagement as positions on ships become available, priority being given to the most necessitous cases, with an undertaking that there should be no victimisation on either side.
The employers on 13th February gave a month's notice to terminate the agreement between them and the association, and propose after seven days to offer employment on new terms to individual operators. If their proposed terms of settlement are accepted within seven days, the notice will be withdrawn.
With regard to a court of inquiry, I would remind the hon. Member that the main function of a court of inquiry is to report upon the causes and circumstances of a dispute, and that it is not empowered to lay down terms of settlement. I have refused hitherto to appoint a court, because the questions at issue were capable of settlement by negotiation and could not be settled without negotiation.
The association at the moment have before them the letter which the employers handed to them on Saturday. In my view it is still practicable and possible for a settlement to be reached by negotiation, and, having regard to the extent to which the issues have been narrowed as a result of last week's negotiations, I am asking both parties to meet again without delay.

Mr. ALBERY: To whom do the savings in salaries that have accrued from the strike go?

Mr. KENNEDY: In view of the unsatisfactory answer which the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Minister of Labour to appoint a court of inquiry in connection with the marine wireless dispute, negotiations between the parties having now broken down, and the position at sea becoming of greater gravity daily owing to the suspension of the Marine Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1919.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a Motion that I can put to the House. If the hon. Member looks at the Act dealing with courts of inquiry, he will see that it is entirely a matter for the Minister's discretion as to whether or not in any case he sets up such a court of inquiry. If I were to grant the Adjournment, it would lead to a precedent which, I am afraid, would mean that every industrial dispute would be brought in that way on the Floor of the House at stages varying according to the views of Members of the House. That would be a prospect which I could not countenance, and I must give a ruling on this occasion which would cover other questions which would undoubtedly arise.

Mr. KENNEDY: Is there not in this case a special feature involving a serious public interest, and might I ask, in view of that, whether the court of inquiry is not the only possible means of ending a dispute in which, apparently, neither the Board of Trade nor the Ministry of Labour is prepared to intervene? In addition, there is the issue raised in the question of the violation of an Act of Parliament, and the suspension of statutory provisions which in this case operate directly in the interests of one of the parties to the dispute.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the last point, that clearly is out of time. If at all, it ought to have been raised when the Minister took that decision. With regard to the other matter, I cannot possibly discriminate as to the importance or magnitude of one dispute or another. I am quite certain that it would lead the House into a hopeless position were I to countenance as adjournment on an industrial dispute.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that the abrogation of this Section of the Act by a Minister of the Crown tends every day at sea to bring human life as well as property into the possibility of disaster, and in these circumstances is it not, therefore, within the scope of subjects to be debated in this House, irrespective of the time limit, since the question of urgency is always before us when human life is at stake?

Mr. SPEAKER: No; the urgency applies to the occasion on which the
Minister has taken the decision and the decision becomes known to the House.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can it only be after some disaster has occurred at sea, and a number of lives are lost, that we can have the opportunity of raising and discussing this question?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not follow at all.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

CLASS II.

BOARD OF CONTROL, ENGLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £26,660, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Control (Lunacy and Mental Deficiency), England, Grants in respect of the Maintenance of certain Ex-Service Mental Patients, and certain Damages and Costs in a legal action.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I should like to give a Brief explanation of one or two of the items in this Supplementary Estimate, which will be found on page 20.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Do I gather that the hon. Member is dealing with the Estimate for the Board of Control?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes.

Mr. MAXTON: I understood that the Prime Minister entered into an agreement with the House that these Votes would be taken in their order, as they appeared on the Paper. This Vote is not next in order to the one that was last discussed, and is it in order, having regard to the promise of the Prime Minister, to discuss this particular Vote now?

The CHAIRMAN: I know nothing of any promise given by the Prime Minister. All my duty is to put the Votes in the order in which they appear upon the Paper for the day.

Mr. MAXTON: I may be mistaken, as I am speaking from memory, without consulting the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I understood that the Prime Minister made the statement that we should go
through these Estimates in the order in which they appeared in the White Paper, with the exception that the one dealing with the Weir steel houses would be taken on Thursday. Now there seems to have been an entirely different order adopted. It makes it difficult to come to the House with the necessary preparation for Estimates of this description.

4.0 P.M.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): May I answer? Speaking also from memory—I did not know that the point was going to be raised—I am confident that either on Thursday or Friday I specified this order in full as it appears on the Paper so as to give hon. Members plenty of time.

Sir K. WOOD: There are four items connected with this Supplementary Vote. I think hon. Members will be familiar with the first. It is for the expenses of a special inquiry into the incidence of mental defect, which was announced in the House a little time ago. The Board of Control and the Board of Education; are proceeding with that inquiry, and the item mentioned is for two-thirds of the expenses to be borne by the Board of Control, the remaining one-third being borne by the Board of Education. The next item concerns the costs in connection with a legal action which is known by the title of Harnett v. Bond, and the Committee will find, on page 21 of the Estimate, a full explanation of the circumstances in which we have to ask today for an additional sum of £2,800. It, in fact, represents the sum of £250 which was paid into Court with a denial of liability, and which was taken out by the plaintiff, and, as a consequence, the payment of certain legal costs which are enumerated on the Paper. I shall be happy, of course, to answer further questions concerning that matter to the best of my ability.
The next item is "Contributions towards expenses of local authorities," under the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913. The revised estimates of the local authorities of their current year's expenditure shows that a further sum of £5,700 to pay grants on account is required, while claims in respect of their 1924–25 expenditure shows that a further sum of £17,300 was required to meet the balance of grant in respect of that year.
As hon. Members know, the Exchequer has to make contributions on the basis of 50 per cent. of the approved expenditure. The last item is a very small one, namely, the extra amount which has to be paid for the clothing and allowances of additional patients at Rampton State Institution. That, I am sorry to say is an institution where more patients have had to go, and in that respect a further small sum is required. There is an Appropriation-in-Aid of additional contributions from patients in respect of the same institution—a sum of £518 towards maintenance, with an additional sum of £182 also in respect of contributions towards maintenance from relatives and others. I think in that brief explanation I have at any rate pointed out the main features which distinguish the Vote on this occasion.

Mr. AMMON: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether in the Vote is included payment for the agreement between the Ministry of Health, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and the London County Council for the study and treatment of encephalitis lethargica at Winchmore Hill?

Sir K. WOOD: I will make inquiries.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
My object is to call attention to the item which appears on page 21 "Damages and Costs in Legal Action." The hon. Gentleman devoted only a very short space in his speech to this very important matter. I am quite sure that the Minister will have the sympathy of this Committee when he comes to defend the action of the Ministry over the whole of this affair, because at the time the action was taken which has resulted in his having to come to-day, and ask us for £2,800, it was not his fortune to be adorning the bench upon which he now sits. But it is impossible for us and for this Committee to understand why we ale now being called upon to vote this sum without some consideration of the events which have led up to this amount; and this is the first time that the Committee has had an opportunity of taking these events into its cognisance, because on previous occasions the subject of this vote has been sub-judice, and it would therefore have been somewhat improper to have dealt with the matter.
Broadly, the events concerning this case were as follow. A number of years ago a man called Harnett was certified as a lunatic and was incarcerated in a private lunatic asylum called Malling Place. He was released from that lunatic asylum, according to the statement of the medical officer of the asylum, on 28 days' leave; and, according to his own view, he was discharged. When he was released—put it at the smallest on 28 days' leave—he found that his brother had charge of his property, and he could not get control of it. Accordingly, he went to the Board of Control in order to investigate the matter, and, when he was there he interviewed Dr. Bond, one of the Board. Dr. Bond, instead of attending to his grievance, forcibly detained Harnett and sent him back to the asylum, this being the third day out of the 28 days that, accordng to the medical officer of the asylum, be was entitled to be on leave. He remained in the custody of the asylum for a period of eight years. He then managed to escape, and, having remained in hiding for over 14 days, he claimed the privilege which is accorded by the existing Lunacy Act to a patient in an asylum who has escaped and remained in hiding for more than a certain period of me, and he demanded that he be not sent back to the asylum unless he was re-certified. The doctors who were called in to certify him failed to do so, and, accordingly, he retained his liberty.
Thereupon, he brought an action for damages against Dr. Bond, the member of the Board of Control under the Ministry of Heath, and the medical officer of the asylum, Dr. Adams, for wrongful detention. The jury, after hearing the case in all its particulars, decided that Harnett was sane, that he was sane when he called upon Dr. Bond, that Dr. Bond's detention of him was illegal, and that the consequences of his detention were that Harnett had been detained in a lunatic asylum for eight years when he was a sane man; and they awarded Harnett £25,000 against Dr. Bond and £5,000 against Dr. Adams. I should have stated that prior to the trial Dr. Bond admitted that he had committed a technical breach of the Lunacy Laws, and, on his behalf, £10 was tendered to Harnett as compensation for the injuries which he had received. The case was then taken to the Court of Appeal
by the Law Officers of the Crown, on the ground that the jury had awarded too heavy damages, because they had taken into account the eight years of incarceration that Harnett had suffered, which was too remote a consideration to be taken into account when the only breach had been the forcible detention for one and a-half hours in Dr. Bond's office. The Court allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial. Harnett appealed against that decision to the House of Lords, and the Clown's case was sustained by the House of Lords.
The position then was that Harnett, if he wished to pursue the matter further, had to enter a fresh trial against Dr. Bond, and that he started to do. At this point, the Ministry made an offer to Harnett to settle the case. They offered a little more than £10 which they had offered in the first instance, and I believe I am right in saying that they offered in all a sum of £250. This was rejected by Harnett. Finally, the Ministry offered £250 on behalf of damages and a further sum of £2,550 on behalf of costs. After some negotiation, this revised offer was accepted, and the case has now been brought to an end.
I venture to suggest that this case is a very serious one in more than one respect. In the first place, it shows the very serious danger that a private individual may run if he imagines that a doctor under the Ministry of Health knows and will respect; the law, because it is quite clear that as a consequence of going to Dr. Bond and putting his case before him he was subjected as a lunatic to eight years' detention when in the opinion of the jury he was sane and remained perfectly sane during the whole time. In the second place, the case shows that such an individual, in endeavouring to obtain his rights, is liable to lose practically the whole of his fortune. I understand that, whatever the State may have to pay as a result of this action, Harnett has had to spend over £25,000, and he will be a net loser in the sum of £20,000. Therefore, this man has not only suffered eight years' detention as a lunatic when he was sane, but, in endeavouring to get his rights, he has also had to pay a sum of £25,000. Finally, although Harnett has suffered all these indignities and loss, the British taxpayer has to pay the figures which are set out, some £3,000 or £4,000 already,
and a further sum of £2,800 which we now are called upon to vote.
I think we are entitled to complain against the whole method in which this case has been dealt with. We are entitled to complain, first of all, that the Ministry of Health has pursued its way, and in the course of that they have crushed this very unfortunate man. I do not think the Ministry of Health have any desire to be vindictive against this man. I think they must recognise that by his martyrdom he has done a considerable service in calling attention to some of the serious dangers of the present Lunacy Law, under which a man who was sane could be detained all that time, and, possibly, the Commission that is now sitting to examine the lunacy question was in part, at any rate, due to the public sentiment which was aroused by this case when it was originally tried. I do further suggest that this House, not merely representing the freedom and rights of private citizens, but also representing the taxpayers of this country, has a very legitimate cause of grievance against the Ministry of Health for the way it has bungled this affair from the start. Here was an obvious case of very grave injustice to a man. The Ministry of Health decided to stand by their doctor, and, in the teeth of the fact -that this man had been detained eight years in a lunatic asylum, they offered to compensate him by a beggarly £10. I have not seen the details of the negotiations, but if he had been offered a sum at all comparable with the terrible wrong inflicted, coupled with a very strong expression of regret, and a desire that he would suffer as little as possible from the consequences of what had happened, I think it quite possible he might have accepted that amount, and a very much lower expenditure would have been put upon the taxpayers of this country.
There is a further question, which, I think, we are entitled to ask. Here is a doctor who, according to his own admission, committed a technical breach of the lunacy regulations. It may be, from his point of view, a technical breach, but a technical breach which results in eight years' detention of a man as a lunatic when he was sane is an exceedingly serious thing, and I think we are entitled to ask what attitude the Ministry takes up with regard to Dr. Bond. I have not the smallest wish to throw any stone at
Dr. Bond. I do not know him personally, and, for all I know, he may be a thoroughly worthy, conscientious servant, a man who has nothing but a desire to do his duty in the position which he occupies; but I do say that if a workman had been guilty, even by accident, of a technical breach which resulted in injury to another individual, and which resulted in a loss of such magnitude to the taxpayers of this country, that it amounted to several times hits own annual salary, I believe you would find that that workman would be dismissed with some pretty hard words, and would have great difficulty in obtaining another job.
I do not say that ought to have been done in this case but I do say we are entitled to know before we vote this money what was done in regard to Dr. Bond; if he has not been dismissed, why he has not been dismissed; and what grounds the Minister has for retaining this man in this position. That is the case on which I beg leave to move the reduction of this Vote by £100. I think that the story which these facts reveal is one of the meanest in the annals of the Government Departments of this country—the ruin financially of a man who had already suffered such grievous wrong. I think it would have been very much better if the taxpayer had been called upon even to face a somewhat larger bill in order that justice might have been more speedily done, and this unfortunate man might have had some redress. But not only is that not so, but, I think, the taxpayer has been actually called upon to bear an additional burden because the meanness of this Department overreached itself.

Sir K. WOOD: I hope the Committee will forgive my intervening again, but I want immediately to reply to the hon. Gentleman. Let me say at once that I think he has been wholly misinstructed upon the facts of this case, and I notice he himself stated he had not had the opportunity of going through the documents and papers, and I presume he must have read some very scanty account of this case. I want, if I may say so, to be very guarded in my reply in the interests of Mr. Harnett himself. I understand that in a few weeks another action of his is about to be tried in the King's Bench Division, dealing, at any rate to some extent, with the issues which have been
raised in this action, and, therefore, as that case is to be tried by a jury, certain comments which otherwise I would have made, I think had better not be made now.

The CHAIRMAN: The position seems to be one of some difficulty. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will further elucidate it? If the issues are the same, or practically the same, or if some are the same, I do not see how this discussion can proceed.

Sir K. WOOD: What I am informed: is that Mr. Harnett has now issued proceedings against the doctor who originally gave the certificate of insanity, and, to a large extent, I suppose, the same issues will arise in this case. I can make my reply to the Committee, I think, without any reference to the issues themselves, because the only reason why I want at all to go into the merits is to repudiate very strongly the allegations made this afternoon against Dr. Bond, who is a Commissioner of the Board of Control and a very respected public servant, allegations, apparently, that he was dishonest and ought to be dismissed.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I did not say anything of the kind. I said it might be suggested that he ought to be dismissed, but I said I wanted an explanation to justify there in retaining him.

Mr. SHORT: On the point of Order. Is it right that this Committee should be considering and discussing this matter if these issues are once again to be brought before the Courts. Would it not be wise for the Minister to withdraw this Vote for the time being, pending a final settlement of this case? I venture to point out that if this discussion goes on, having regard to what the Minister said, some of us are going to reply very severely to his interpretation of the statement of my hon. Friend.

The CHAIRMAN: I certainly think that if the issues involved in a pending action are the same as those involved in a past action, the Committee cannot go into the case. It would be prejudicing the issue of the further action. If the hon. Gentleman can say anything without going into these matters, the discussion can proceed, but, obviously, it is not an easy position.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: How is it possible for the Committee to proceed with the consideration of this Vote unless they are to enter into the merits of the case? I quite recognise the undesirability of anyone in this House or outside expressing any view on the case, which I am not sure is not sub judice now, and one of the positions in which we are placed is that the Government or their servants are involved. We cannot possibly discuss the figures in this Vote unless the merits of the case come under review. May I suggest, therefore, that it is improper that this Vote should be brought before the Committee until such time as the Committee are free to go into the whole of the case?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The action which has been referred to, and which is now pending, is an action in which, I understand, Mr. Harnett is suing the doctor who originally certified him in November, 1912, I think it was. The action which Mr. Harnett brought against Dr. Bond and Dr. Adam was an action in which it was expressly admitted by Mr. Harnett that he had been properly certified as insane, and the only issue before the jury in that action—I speak from knowledge, having been engaged both in private practice and afterwards as Attorney-General in the case—was whether or not he was still insane when he went to Dr. Bond, or whether, as he has alleged, he had recovered by that time. Therefore, although it is quite true the question of Dr. Bond's conduct might properly be discussed, as has been said by hon. Members opposite, the question whether Mr. Harnett was or was not originally insane cannot be relevant. Therefore, I suggest there would be no difficulty in discussing this Vote without in any way impinging upon the issue involved in the second action, as to whether or not the doctor's conduct in the original certification was justified or not.

The CHAIRMAN: It no doubt may be possible to discuss this matter apart from the second action, but it seems to me the difficulty here will be to keep the discussion to the narrow limits which the Attorney-General suggests. I would, therefore, propose that this Vote might be taken later. That can be done, I think, without prejudice, and we can proceed with the next item. Of course, it
may be that it will have to be brought up in a different form. I would, therefore, suggest that the hon. Gentleman should move that the original Motion be with-drawn.

Sir K. WOOD: Of course I ought to say we cannot tell when this other action will be reached. I think it will be reached in a short time.

The CHAIRMAN: Obviously, the position is one of considerable difficulty. It may serve as a precedent. I should not like to rule definitely and finally on this matter without some opportunity for consideration. But if the Motion be with-drawn now, it can come on later.

Motion for reduction, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S OFFICE, ENGLAND.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,810, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar General of Births, &c.

STATIONERY AND PRINTING.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £48,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for Sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: In regard to this Vote, and especially in regard to paper, I notice that the extra cost of paper is £78,000 on a total original sum of £470,000. I should like to know the cost per ton, and where the paper was purchased? I should also like to know in regard to item G—"Binding, etc.," why the expenditure on departmental printed books, account books, registers, etc., is expected to exceed the original estimate by £15,000? Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will answer these two questions?

Viscount SANDON: I really think that under this heading we are up against
one of the biggest questions of economy in the Government Departments. It is not so much the things in themselves, but the spirit that lies behind them, as waste here must mean the same in many other directions. I have had experience over five or six years since the War, as also even during the War, and hon. Members know that we have enormous envelopes enclosing a very small strip of paper with, perhaps, a couple of lines written on it. I hold in my hand a large envelope with an unfolded slip of paper dealing with Income Tax. This, I would suggest to the Committee, is absolutely unnecessary waste, and when this is spread over all the Government Departments, a very large sum of money must be involved. We all know that in the mass of communications we get from Government Departments about our constituents the vast majority come in large envelopes, with, perhaps, a bare acknowledgement inside. It is most lavish. I am not able to afford this excellent kind of paper, nor can we afford it, either, on behalf of the taxpayers. I feel it is quite possible that drastic cuts could be made in this direction. I would suggest, too, that in these kind of cases, postcards might well be used. Personally, I conduct the greater part of my correspondence by this means.
The class of paper used is beautiful and lavish to a degree. Private Members cannot afford it! Why, then, should the Government Departments be able to afford it? I also suggest that communications at present enclosed in envelopes should be folded, and that would make the use of large envelopes in many cases unnecessary. I have had a private valuation made of the types of paper used by the various Departments, and although I will not give the figures, as I have not yet verified them, in any case it seems to me to be scandalous that this most luxurious paper should be utilised, and paid for by the taxpayers' money, when much cheaper paper could be used. I am personally interested in this matter, and in my private capacity, as I have to buy paper for my own use. Much as I should like to use such excellent paper as this Government paper, I cannot afford to do it. The thing is unpardonable.
I also suggest that where thick paper is used, typing might easily be done on the back as well as on the front. Then, again, in the case of printed forms. In a large number of cases there is left blank column after column, which also suggests that something is wrong there. In a Government Department after the War I saw what went on in the way of waste. For instance, in the matter of blotting paper, it used to be changed in the office of the Secretary of State whenever an ink mark appeared upon it. The same sort of thing happened with the pen nibs.
I should like to make it perfectly clear that I am not complaining of the Stationery Office, because I have in front of me a most admirable Circular, dated July, 1920, sent out by that Department My complaint is that the excellent directions are not in any way carried out by the Departments, and I could wish the Stationery Office had more authority to enforce their demands in these matters. The 14 points of this Circular are excellent. In large type those concerned are told for the sake of economy:
Do not use a large envelope when a small envelope will do.
We are constantly asking for the expenditure of public money on various most useful items, and this is refused us because the money is not available. Where has it gone? It has gone in tiny unfolded slips in large envelopes. I want to ask in all earnestness and seriousness whether the Government Departments ought not to have more authority to insist upon the suggestions being carried out. I trust that the Financial Secretary will exercise what pressure he can to see that the matter is looked into.

Mr. W. BAKER: I am very glad that I do not belong to the titled classes—

Mr. ERSKINE: There is hope for you yet.

Mr. BAKER: I am very glad to hear it; I did not know it. The last speaker has dealt considerably with this matter, but it seems to me perfectly clear, if I may say so, that it is somewhat difficult to talk much on a Supplementary Estimate if you are on the Labour benches. I do not propose to pursue the line taken by the last speaker, except to say that I do not think that there is the slightest
foundation for the charge that the Civil Service does not try to comply with the request of the Stationery Office and the Treasury in the exercise of economy. I should like to begin by expressing regret that these Estimates are taken without a preliminary statement from the Minister The Vote that we have just left is an excellent illustration of how badly things can be done. This Vote is now being presented to the Committee without a word of explanation or justification for the details which we have to consider.
In the first place, I should like to inquire why it is that the expenditure on "paper for Parliamentary Publications, Non-Parliamentary Publications, Departmental Forms and Circulars, Pamphlets, Stationery, etc.," has risen by £78,000 especially when it is remembered that the original Estimate showed an increase of £5,000? Then, take "Miscellaneous Office Supplies":
The expenditure on typewriters, duplicators, calculating and other labour-saving machines has proved larger than was anticipated,
and the figure is quoted at £21,000. Again, it is in the original Estimate £5,000 higher than the Estimates of the previous year. I do not regret that Government Departments are turning to up-to-date methods. I think it is a matter for congratulation that calculating and other labour-saving machines are being introduced. I would not be understood for a moment to be necessarily against expenditure of that sort. What I do say is that the representative of the Treasury, presenting details of this character, should, in my view, take the Committee into his confidence, explain the policy which has been pursued, and claim the credit which is due to the Government Departments which have successfully introduced these labour-saving appliances. I want to say something more than that. I should like to learn from the representative of the Treasury the origin of these machines. I regret that nearly all these particular labour-saving appliances came from overseas. I am afraid it is so with regard to first-class appliances of this character. They seem infrequently to originate in this country. Whatever may be the position with regard to that, I should appreciate a statement as to what is the origin of these various duplicators and other labour-saving machines. I
would also, if I am in order, like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can tell us anything further in regard to the "Guide to Official Statistics."

The CHAIRMAN: There is no item of that sort in this Vote.

Mr. BAKER: I was under the impression that it came under E—Paper, Parliamentary Publications, etc. The point I was going to submit was that there is a market for Government publications if the Stationery Office and the Treasury will only realise the existence of that market, and endeavour to place the publications within the reach of possible purchasers. It is constantly being brought to my notice that this particular volume, "Guide to Official Statistics," is very highly thought of, and would be greatly appreciated by every student of modern political economic affairs if it were more widely known. The question of Blue Books possibly comes under some similar heading, but I believe many publications issued by the Stationery Office under this heading are invaluable to any student of modern affairs.
It is to me a matter for regret that the Stationery Office does not, by adopting a more attractive make-up, endeavour to place their goods upon the market in competition with the goods of a similar character produced by the ordinary commercial publishers. There is the further point that sufficient regard is not had to the price at which the publications are issued. I would submit that where a publication is to be printed, whether or not there he a public sale, the cost of setting up the type and preparing for publication should form a, charge against the Department concerned, and that the publication should be placed on public sale at a figure which will meet the subsequent cost. It is not satisfactory that such a large mine of valuable information should remain locked up in these Blue Books when it would be so valuable if got into the hands of the people. I would appeal very strongly to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to consider the few points which I have put forward. Finally I would like to call attention to a resolution passed at the Conference of the Library Association held in Glasgow on 8th September, 1924. The resolution says:
This association, while appreciating the recognition by His Majesty's Treasury of
the Special Committee's plea for cheaper Government publications, as evidenced by the Government subsidy of 50 per cent., regrets that the concession has been made at the expense of previous privileges; and, as the smaller public libraries in particular are still unable to procure an adequate selection of such publications, the association requests the Committee to make further representations to the Treasury with the view of reducing considerably the present prices of Government publications and of establishing depository libraries in selected geographical areas.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): Before I give anything like a general explanation of this Supplementary Estimate, I should like to say a word or two about the two speeches that have already been made, because I think they are likely to be helpful to us. I can assure the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken and the Committee generally that in this Department, as in all others, the one thing we are more anxious for than anything else is economy, as far as it can be combined with efficiency. My Noble Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) made some suggestions which may be valuable, such as that postcards might occasionally be used in place of letters, and that envelopes of more economical size would occasionally suffice. Those suggestions will no doubt be taken into account. I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol East (Mr. W. Baker) and I do not believe there has been, in these respects, any very widespread disregard of economy, having regard to the convenience that most people find in using envelopes and paper adapted to the purpose in hand.
Those suggestions will not be lost sight of, and possibly may be of some use on future occasions. The hon. Member for Bristol East made suggestions also with reference to that part of the Estimate which comes under the head "Appropriations-in-Aid." There, again, I can only say that we are very anxious to promote as wide as possible dissemination of the information contained in Blue Books and other Government Departmental publications. I agree with him that very often they contain masses of information which would be of great value to the public; but I do not know whether he altogether realises the difficulty there is in getting any large sale for papers of that sort without extensive advertising,
which, of course, would add very largely to the cost of the Department and might, in its turn, come in for very pungent criticism in Parliament. Many of these publications are extremely costly as regards paper, printing and so forth, and in the absence of widespread advertising I do not think the Stationery Office would be justified in printing large numbers of copies, or giving them out to the public at any price which would not recover the cost of printing. There, again, I can promise the hon. Gentleman that we will carefully consider the suggestions he has made, and we are entirely at one with him in the object he has in view, which is to get as large a circulation as possible.
The hon. Gentleman rather reproved me for not having given some general explanation of this Supplementary Estimate at the outset. I was quite prepared to do so, but I thought hon. Members might like first to put questions. I submit to the Committee that the Stationery Office is the Government Department in which it is more difficult, perhaps, than in any other to make a very accurate forecast of what the expenditure of the year is likely to be. Demands for supplies come to the Stationery Office from the other Departments. Within certain limits, each Department will know what its own policy is likely to be, and what its own expenditure is likely to be; it has only to make a forecast limited to its own activities. The Stationery Office has to furnish supplies for all the Departments, and whether the demand will be much larger or much smaller than usual does not in the least depend upon itself—or very little upon itself—but almost entirely upon what will be done in the various Departments. The actual margin of error in estimating, as shown in this Supplementary Estimate, is about 3 per cent.—very little more than 3 per cent.—not a very large margin of error. I hope I shall not be straying outside the limits of Order in making this passing observation, that the whole of the Supplementary Estimates for this year represent together less than 1 per cent. of error on the total Budget expenditure of the year. Therefore I think we may claim that on this particular Vote, as on others, the estimating this year was not very wide of the mark.
As I said with reference to a Vote last week, I submit that under-estimating,
which has to be made good by Supplementary Estimates, is far better than error in the direction of over-estimating, which only means that we are taking more out of the taxpayers' pockets than is really necessary, merely in order to escape criticism which may be made in this House and to save Parliamentary time which may be necessary to get Supplementary Estimates through. If I remain at the Treasury, I would far rather that we should have the trouble and the time necessary for getting through Supplementary Estimates at the end of the financial year than avoid them by the only way in which they can be avoided, the very easy method of starting with so large an estimate that the Department is certain to be well within the mark and, so far from requiring Supplementary Estimates, will make a considerable surrender to the Sinking Fund. This Supplementary Estimate is due mainly to two causes. From the time of the Geddes Committee, when there was a great push for economy, until last year, there has been a decrease in these Estimates.

Sir F. WISE: There was an increase last year—1925–26.

Mr. McNEILL: That is this year, the current year. Up till last year there was a small decrease. I will give the figures if they are challenged. For 1922–23 the actual expenditure was £1,553,077; 1923–24, £1,523,965; 1924–25, £1,471,418. Up to the end of 1924–25 there has been a progressive and steady, though not a very large, decrease in the expenditure on this Vote. At the time when this Estimate for 1925–20 was prepared, the full figures for the preceding year 1924–25 were not known. The figures for the six months were known, but not the year's expenditure. The actual expenditure for the first six months of that year amounted to £821,094. The calculation was made—and I do not think it was an extravagant calculation in making the Estimate for this year—that that level would remain fairly constant. But after the Estimate had been presented to Parliament it was found that the first six months of the previous year did not provide quite so trustworthy a basis of calculation as had been supposed. The reasons for that are twofold. First of all, all the Departments had large reserve stocks of paper and other stationery requisites from the War
period, and under pressure, constant pressure, from the Treasury and public opinion to keep their Estimates as low as possible, they were, to a greater extent perhaps than was realised outside the Departments, keeping down their demands on the Stationery Office by using up existing stocks. As was inevitable, they came to the end of those stocks, and it was after the Estimate for the current year had been presented that it was realised at the Stationery Office that there were likely to be larger demands from the Departments on account of the exhaustion of stocks.
5.0 P. M.
The Stationery Office themselves had also, during the last year, run down their stocks to vanishing point. They did that in order to bring about a new standardisation of paper, and with it a different denominational unit. In the interests of economy and of finance they introduced a system by which the ream should consist of 500 sheets, instead of 480 as hitherto, and it, would have been very inconvenient, in fact more than inconvenient I am told, to have had these two stocks on hand at the same time. Therefore it was desired to get rid of the old stock, before bringing the new system into operation, and that resulted in the necessity for replenishing their stocks to the extent of £40,000. The second reason for the under-estimating is the astonishingly large increase in Government business all round. I will give the Committee one or two illustrations. As I have said, there has been a genera1 increase of business in all Departments, and although it may not be very great in any one Department, they all concentrate on the Stationery Department., and it therefore makes itself felt more severely there than in the other Departments. This increase in Government business all round amounts to 12½ per cent. One hon. Member asked me something about the cost of paper, and in that relation I will give some figures which I think will answer his point. This increase of 12½ per cent. in Government business makes itself felt in paper in this way. In 1924–25 the amount of pa-per purchased was 9,870 tons, at a cost of £303,900. The increase in paper, due to the increase in Government business, amounts to 1,234 tons and costs £38,000. That shows how this increase
in business throughout the Departments makes itself felt in paper at the Stationery Office. It makes itself felt in other requirements, of course.
An hon. Member opposite asked me a question about binding and mechanical devices. Since the Estimate was presented, there has been a great development in the use of mechanical labour-saving devices, and although we have to pay for them now when they are purchased, we hope they will produce economies in other directions and make themselves felt in other Votes. There has been an increase for new loose-leaf ledgers of £6,000, and filing appliances, £2,000. Arrears of binding of books and papers, which has been postponed as long as it could be postponed, but which could not be postponed any longer, represents an increase of £7,000. The rest of the increase has been spread over the whole administration. I will give the Committee some examples that will show the sort of thing of which I am speaking in the use of these mechanical appliances. I compare the first six months of 1924–25—they are the figures on which the Estimate was based—with the same six months of 1925–26, and for these devices alone the Air Ministry's increased demand was £691; the Admiralty's £2,790; Customs and Excise £2,387, and Post Office £3,773. These are the increased demands in these Departments for these appliances alone, and they will be found under sub-head G. Let me take office appliances. Here the general increase in Government business accounts for a supplementary demand of £16,000. Duplicating and calculating machines amount to £2,500, typewriters and repairs and accessories come to £2,000, and new typewriters £500.
Let me point out, in case any hon. Member should think there is any extravagance in respect of repairs and accessories, that the actual amount for repairs to typewriting machines, spread over the whole Government administration, comes to rather less than 10s. a year per machine, which I am told is a great deal lower than the ordinary standard in commercial offices. Let me give one or two examples of this increase in general supplies, which will show the Committee how the work has increased in Government Departments. In six months there has
actually been an increase in the demand for fine cord of 3,000 lbs. in weight.

The CHAIRMAN: Under what item does this come?

Mr. McNEILL: It is under the heading "Miscellaneous Office Supplies." An increase in the demand for these supplies has made this Supplementary Estimate necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the cord used for?"] Hon. Members are asking me for a detail which fairly bowls me out. I have not been through all the offices to see the exact use which is made of this cord, but in the case of the next two items hon. Members' own intelligence will supply the answer. There is an additional requirement of 1,000 bottles of paste.

The CHAIRMAN: How is the paste a labour-saving machine?

Mr. McNEILL: I can assure you, Sir, that "Miscellaneous Office Supplies" covers a very large proportion of the increase in the demand, and I submit am entitled to show the Committee, when I am asking for this additional sum, the sort of materials which it is necessary for the Stationery Office to buy and the sort of quantities which are necessary.

The CHAIRMAN: Then is it the case that the description in the note is not exhaustive? Do other articles account for the increase?

Mr. McNEILL: Oh, yes. There is one other item which I should like to mention, because it has impressed me very much, and I think it also impress hon. Members. In this six months there has been required an additional 8,000 quarts of ink. If hon. Members say that the only way in which this Supplementary Estimate can be legitimately attacked is that we ought to have foreseen these increases in typewriters, in binders, in paper, in arrears of binding, and in all these sorts of miscellaneous office supplies, then I say that you cannot possibly foretell when the original Estimate is framed, with any degree of accuracy how much of these articles will be required during the coming year. All you can do is to go on the Estimates of the last few years. As I have shown, the Estimates of the previous years show a small decrease, and therefore I think it is reasonable to assume that we have gone as near as we can to forecasting what would be required this year. It is much better to ask the
Committee for £48,000 as a Supplementary Estimate than to show the Committee later on that £48,000 or £50,000 has been surrendered. We have not done that. We have used all the original Estimate, and there can be no harm in our coming to the Committee, and saying that we require this small additional sum.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some information about deductions from the Vote, "Anticipating Savings on, other Subheads," about which nothing has been said?

Mr. McNEILL: That has been the result of the economical methods pursued by the Stationery Office, and a saving has also been effected by doing a larger proportion of the printing on the Stationery Office premises rather than by contract. I do not think I need make any apology for asking the Committee to vote this Supplementary Estimate. I have endeavoured to give a frank account of why it is necessary, and if any further detail be desired I shall be only too pleased to give it to any hon. Member.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I am sure the Committee has listened very gratefully to the meticulous care with which the right hon. Gentleman has explained this increase, but I think our satisfaction must be tinged with a little surprise when he is reduced to quoting a few little things like string and ink, to account for an increase of £48,000. I want to question the calculations of the right hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, it would have been better for him to have invoked the aid of one of his own calculating machines when he says that there is an increase of only 3 per cent. on the original Estimate.
The original Estimate was for £470,000; the revised Estimate is for £548,000. The additional sum required is, therefore, £78,000, and that is a 16 per cent. increase—indeed, 16 per cent. is an understatement. In the case of the binding account, the error of the Department is 14 per cent., and in the case of the Miscellaneous Office Supplies the error is 18 per cent. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman was able to take out two sets of figures, and say that the relation of the one to the other was 3 per cent., but the actual error made by the Department is 16 per cent., 14 per cent., and 18 per cent., respectively. There are one or two minor items, and one is connected
with a publication which has just been issued. It is a book written by the Noble Lord the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley), in which he explains how he went to Australia disguised as a settler. I believe that has been published at the Government expense, and I wish to ask whether that comes under "Parliamentary or non-Parliamentary publication"? At the same time, it would be useful to tell us how many copies have been issued, and what price the Government have paid for them? I read in the booklet how the Noble Lord dressed himself up as a settler, and went to Australia on the cheap. All I say is, that if the Noble Lord wishes to spread that information among his colleagues, it would be better for him to do it at his own expense.

Mr. McNEILL: That does not come under this Vote.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Then I will raise the point when the appropriate Vote comes up for discussion. There is another item:
The Receipts from the Sales of Government Publications and from Advertisements in and Sales of the Gazettes are expected to be greater than was anticipated.
I went to the Library, and consulted a copy of the "London Gazette," but I was not able to find any advertisements.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: You will find advertisements in the "Labour Gazette."

Captain GARRO-JONES: I am not saying there are no advertisements in them, but I am speaking of the "London Gazette." I noticed that the rates for advertising in the "London Gazette" are £1 10s. for a quarter page tabulated. I think that charge is much too small. I would like to ask if the "London Gazette" is a paying publication. I know it has exceptional facilities for private and secret information and the publishing of official communications. It ought to make a handsome profit every year, and should not be run at a loss. I would like to ask what effort has been made to increase the revenue from advertisements. I know of a newspaper which, by increasing its canvassers, double its revenue without affecting its circulation. I would like to point out that it might be possible to double the income of the "London Gazette" by doubling the number of advertisement canvassers, and some efforts should be
made to make it a paying proposition. I want to say a word about the £48,000 which is the additional item required under these various headings. Instead of approaching this question in a petty spirit, trying to save on ink and string, the right hon. Gentleman should try to make the Stationery Office a paying Department, instead of coming to this House with an Estimate of £1,600,000.

The CHAIRMAN: Those remarks are more appropriate to the main Vote.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I shall be quite content if the right hon. Gentleman can show under these particular items that some attempts have been made to put things on a paying basis.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON: I want to refer to the expenditure on paper. I gather that this item of £78,000 is required to meet the increased cost of Parliamentary and non-Parliamentary publications. I would like to ask if any attempt has been made to go through a list of the Parliamentary and non-Parliamentary publications, in order to see whether any of them can be discontinued so as to make such a Vote as this unnecessary. We get periodically a big printed paper giving the list of Parliamentary and Command Papers issued by the Stationery Office, and anybody who looks through it will at once see that it contains an enormous number of publications which I do not think most Members of this House ever read. On an average there are some 300 Command Papers issued every year and about 200 Parliamentary Papers. I quite appreciate the fact that a good many of them are probably issued as a result of Acts of Parliament or Regulations, but some of them have been in force for some considerable time, and it is quite possible that the reason for issuing them may now have disappeared.
In the same way there may be a certain number of Command Papers which are really unnecessary. I know we have the Publications and Debates Reports Committee, and I do not know exactly what the supervision exercised by that Committee amounts to, or what power it has. But I would like to suggest that if it is possible that Committee should be allowed to exercise some discretion with regard to the number of Parliamentary
papers which are issued, and I think that Committee should be consulted as to whether some of them could not be discontinued. So far as the Command Papers are concerned, I do not know the procedure adopted, but I believe the question as to whether a Paper should be issued or not is settled between the Government Department concerned and the Stationery Office. Could the Stationery Office not consider a little more closely whether some of the Command Papers could be discontinued?
There are a certain number of returns presented every year with regard to the procedure of this House, giving the number of times the House has adjourned, or the number of times that certain Motions have been moved, for which, honestly speaking, I cannot see any use, because such information is contained in the ordinary proceedings of the House and is bound up with the "Journal." Therefore, I cannot understand why we should have these Summaries printed every year. The hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) has suggested that the "London Gazette" might be made to pay its way if used more as a medium for advertisements, and he suggests that the advertisement rates should be increased. I have always understood that there were two reasons for the publication of the "London Gazette." One was to publish a list of appointments in the Civil Service, which would not be a very good medium for advertisements, and the other is to publish a list of bankruptcies. I think that is the reason why people do not take advantage of this medium for advertising purposes.

Captain GARRO-JONES: If the hon. and gallant Member will get hold of a copy of the "London Gazette" he will find it devoted to a large number of other uses which cause it to circulate in many quarters that ought to make it profitable.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON: I do not think that it has a very large circulation at all. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take up this question of reducing the number of publications, and ascertain whether some of them cannot be discontinued.

Mr. GILLETT: The arguments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down may have something in them, but one of the difficulties is that if you
put a list of these publications before hon. Members it is certain that one hon. Member would declare some of them were unnecessary, whilst others would say those same publications were necessary and ought to be continued. I think the Financial Secretary will agree that, although he has given us certain information about Miscellaneous Office Supplies, the great increase in regard to all these things in unduly heavy, and I think the same criticism might be made about these various items as have been made about the supply of paper.
I would like to say a word or two about the way in which the accounts are presented. In the original Estimates we have no information as to what the amount of paper in stock was at the beginning of the year. We have had the same difficulty in another Government Department, and that makes it all the more difficult to decide as to how far the now demands are really in excess, because we cannot tell whether there was a large or a small stock of paper at the beginning of the year. Consequently the figures are a pure fallacy on that account. It is quite possible that the Government had not any paper in stock at the beginning of the year, and on the other hand they might have had a large stock. Does the same state of things apply to Miscellaneous Office Supplies? If all this is purely expenditure, I should like to know why such a large increase is needed in regard to these various items. I understand there has been a suggestion that paper is going to be put under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and I have been wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman has been laying in a large store of paper in order that the Government may come out on the right side.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I want to reinforce the remarks which have been made by the hon. and gallant. Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Col. V. L. Henderson) about unnecessary publications. I have one or two Government publications in my hands. Here is one showing the election expenses and giving the returns, and it has been issued quite recently. It runs into 95 pages and contains details of what every candidate at the last General Election spent under all the principal headings. It has been issued 15 months after the event, and the whole of the information it contains has been published
in the local newspapers, because that is a requirement of the election law, and yet this very expensive volume is printed and sent out. I see a certain amount of information in regard to how much hon. Members have spent, and I am wondering whether it is all quite as true as it is supposed to be.
At any rate that seems to me to be a quite unnecessary publication. Then there is another publication, "Closure of Debates under Standing Order No. 26." It runs into 15 pages. Technically, the responsibility for that publication rests with the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, because he moved it, but the real responsibility lies with the whole House, because no one challenged the proposal to print this return. Then there is another pamphlet, "Adjournment Motions under Standing Order No. 10," which last year were nil. I really do not know what public purpose is served by issuing such a document. Another publication is entitled, "Business of the House, Sittings." The number of days the House sat last Session is 148 days, but it does not give the number of nights. In all seriousness, I think there is a gross waste of public money caused by the printing of unnecessary documents, and this is one of the effective opportunities for dealing with the matter.
The hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) drew attention to the high price of Government publications. I am inclined to think that the commercial policy adopted by the Stationery Office is all wrong. Many documents that they sell have to be printed in any event for official purposes, and what is sold to the public represents the surplus product, which could be profitably sold at much less than the average price of the whole issue. The result of the new policy adopted, as a result of the Geddes Committee, has been so much to enhance the price of many Government publications that there is to-day practically no public sale for them at all. Some hon. Members may occasionally look at the Annual Statement of Trade, which is generally issued about a year after the year to which it relates. The volumes are, I think, now priced at £2 2s. These documents have to be printed in any event, and, I think, rightly, for the public service. But no one, except possibly a few propagandist societies, ever buys them
to-day, although before the War they used to have a fairly substantial sale. Again, the price of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Proceedings of this House is 6d., whereas before the War it was 3d.
I think that if a really progressive sales policy were adopted by the Stationery Office, a very considerable revenue might be earned. I was astounded at the economic business policy propounded by the Financial Secretary. He said that if we advertised, we should spend money; but the object of advertising is to spend money, in order that you may get still more back. He would then come along with Appropriations-in-Aid so large that we should have no Supplementary Estimates at all under this head, and possibly we should reach the stage indicated by the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones), that it would be a paying proposition. May I also make the suggestion that the get-up of these publications, in many cases, is deplorable? No one would ever buy a Government Blue Book for what it looked like. Those who are skilled in the production of books know that very often an appropriate get-up helps to sell the document, but no one would think of buying a Blue Book on these grounds. I admit that the OFFICIAL REPORT of Parliamentary Debates, which we commonly call "Hansard," is rather better got up than some of the others, but I think that if there were a photograph of the star speaker in every Debate on the front page the circulation might be substantially increased, particularly in that Member's own constituency.
In all seriousness, I wish that the Stationery Office would adopt a more progressive commercial policy with regard to sales of publications, and would review the whole theory upon which they are now working with regard to their prices. I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney that more might be done in obtaining advertisements for some of the publications. It is true that the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" is fairly successful in the number of advertisements that it has; it has a large number of small advertisements; but I am quite certain that the sale of a document of that kind could be quadrupled if real energy were put into the selling of it, and that it would bring in an enormous revenue, because it has
a high-quality circulation as it is. That is still more true of the "Board of Trade Journal." I would ask the Financial Secretary if be will represent this to the Departments concerned, which are largely responsible in this matter. The Stationery Office is responsible for publishing, and is often responsible for advertisements, but, if a Department has such a high sense of its dignity that it does not want advertisements in its publications, the Stationery Office, quite clearly, cannot render the best commercial service which it might do in other circumstances. I shall be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the suggestions which I have made, and give them full consideration.

Major ATTLEE: I do not want to follow the very interesting point that was put by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) about unnecessary publications, except to say that I quite sympathise with his objection to the interesting document issued to-day in reference to election expenses, because he is £60 over the mark.

Mr. WILLIAMS: No. On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the document. He has taken the first column, which shows the legal maximum, but that excludes what is paid to the agent, and all personal expenses. If he had understood election law a little better, he would not have made such a mistake.

Major ATTLEE: I am glad to be corrected by the hon. Member. At the same time, be does come among the very select band who exceed the limit shown in the first column—there are very few of them—and perhaps that is why he did not like my talking about it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: indicated dissent.

Major ATTLEE: What I really wanted was to ask for some further explanation about the surprising fact, which I do not think has been noticed before, that there has been an increase of 12½ per cent. in Government business recently. It had not previously struck me that the present Government were so extremely active, and I should like to know in what directions this increase of 12½ per cent. has occurred? We have heard something about manilla paper jackets, and about hundreds of pots of paste, and I should like to know in what direction these are
being utilised. There is such a thing as a sort internicine warfare between Government Departments, which we certainly do not want to see increase. Anyone who has been in a Government office has seen those large files, with their jackets, which go backwards and forwards between, say, the India Office and the Colonial Office, and so on, and I am wondering if it is that sort of increase which we are getting.
Why this sudden increase? It seems to me that somewhere there must be a terrible influx of work, to cause the use of such an enormous amount of paper. The amount of paste, also, is, surely, very large. Is it due to the controversy that raged last year between the Admiralty and the Treasury over economy in cruisers'? Is it due to the general economy work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or to the vast amount of inter-Departmental correspondence? I think we ought to have some explanation of this 12½ per cent., because it appears to be an all-round increase. If it occurred only in one Department, there might be an explanation, but an increase of 12½ per cent. in the business of Government offices, without anything to show for the benefit of the country, seems to me to be simply an increase of 12½ per cent. in inefficiency. Is it an increase in the Post Office, or the War Office, or the Foreign Office, or in which office does it occur; or is it merely a general increase? If it be a general increase, I think it is quite time the Chancellor of the Exchequer put his foot down, in order to stop too much letter-writing, minuting and printing. If it be in some special office, I think we should have some special reason for the increase.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: I want to ask my right hon. Friend only one question, and that is, what happens to all the waste paper in the Government Offices? I am informed that during the War this waste paper was sold at a very good profit, and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether it is sold at a profit now.

Sir FRANK NELSON: I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions before he replies. He will remember that he informed the House, I think towards the end of December, in answer to a question, that no fewer than 273,000,000 telegraph forms were used.
I think he indicated that he would be good enough to look into that matter, and see whether he was satisfied as to whether undue extravagance was or was not taking place. Would he also consider whether there is not a certain amount of extravagance in this House which might be curbed? Hon. Members come day by day and take their copies of the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates, and so on, and these papers are used and then left here, and nobody ever seems to know what becomes of them. In addition, there seems to be an enormous waste of notepaper in the Library. Could my right hon. Friend tell us whether, during the last two or three years, the quantity of notepaper used in the Library has increased or decreased?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I wanted to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, but before doing so I should like to say that the remarks of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) rather interested me. I always thought that he was against State trading, but this afternoon he has advocated State trading very eloquently indeed. Perhaps he has been convinced that the State can do some of these tasks very much better than private enterprise. The point that I desire to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this. As hon. Members know, we receive from time to time documents relative to work of the League of Nations, and Members become conversant with what has transpired at Geneva in consequence. I have on more than one occasion raised the issue with the Minister of Labour in the House, as to whether we could get information and documents from time to time as to what is transpiring in the International Labour Office at Geneva. It will be remembered that the International Labour Office at Geneva is part of the Organisation of the League of Nations, but, although I have made the request on more than one occasion, I am not sure whether it has been acceded to, though I think a promise was made that it would be. I should very much like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether we may in future get documents relative to the work of the International Labour Organisation, on the same lines as we now receive documents in relation to the League of Nations itself?

Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid that that is a question which I really cannot
answer, at all events at the present moment, because it is not a matter which comes under the Stationery Office. It is a matter of policy, and I think the hon. Member ought to address his question, probably, to the Foreign Office. The Stationery Office, of course, is an executive office, which carries out instructions received by it from the various Departments, and, if it receives instructions to produce literature with regard to the League of Nations, it will, of course, do so; but it would be out of the question that it should take the initiative. Therefore, I do not think I can give an answer on that subject at the present moment.
The hon. and gallant Member for Lime-house (Major Attlee) spoke about the 12½ per cent. increase, and seemed to think that it must be due to some extraordinary outburst of departmental letter-writing. It is not so at all; it is a general increase. I did not say that it was a sudden increase; I think it is a gradual upward curve of Government business. It has, however, been more marked recently. For example, this year there has been the widows' pensions scheme, which was not, of course, foreseen at the time when the Estimate was made, and that has caused a large demand upon the Stationery Office. Then there has been a steady growth in Post Office work. I have not the actual figures here, but there has been a, very steady growth in the size of the Telephone Directory, which continues to grow more and more. All these factors, of course, accumulate, and, owing to their cumulative effect, much greater demands have been made on the Stationery Office all round.
The hon. and gallant Member asked whether the Foreign Office had anything to do with it. Of course, the Foreign Office has a great deal to do. Since the War, a number of new nations have come into existence, and that has involved gradual additions to the work of the Foreign Office, which reflect themselves in the work of the Stationery Office and everywhere else. Moreover, during the last year there have been very exceptional demands in connection with the printing of Statutes. The enormously bulky codifying Acts that have been passed in relation to real property have made the annual Statutes this year a very much bigger job, both in printing
and in material. Again, our system of taxation necessarily becomes from time to time more complex. There are more graduations in the Income Tax, and there is a larger and more complicated system of rebates. All these changes of policy immediately make themselves felt in the demands upon the Stationery Office, and account for the increase to which I have referred.
Several hon. Members have spoken about Parliamentary Papers, and have asked whether some of them could not be done away with. That is a subject which I myself have gone into in the short time I have been at the Treasury, to see whether economy is possible. As an hon. Member opposite pointed out, if you begin rashly any particular form of cutting down papers, you never quite know whether you may be causing legitimate discontent to Members of the House. If, for instance, I were to draw a somewhat arbitrary line, and say, "There is no occasion to print this or that sort of Government paper," how can I tell the requirements of some other Members, and how do I know that I may not be cutting off exactly what some hon. Members particularly require? It is exceedingly difficult to economise in that particular, and there is a great deal of very legitimate jealousy on the part of the House of Commons against having its privileges with regard to Parliamentary papers of all sorts interfered with.

Captain GARRO-JONES: The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) gave four examples of what he considered to be redundant Parliamentary papers. Could the right hon. Gentleman point to any particular use to which any single one of those papers could be put? The hon. Member's argument was that not one of them was of any use. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any argument to refute that?

Mr. McNEILL: No, and I have not the slightest intention of trying, for the very reason I have given, because my opinion on the matter would be of no more value than that of the hon. Member who has asked the question. Neither of us is competent to judge to what extent these papers may be used by other hon. Members. An hon. Friend behind me asked whether the Stationery Office could not approach the Publications Committee.
I have been a member of that Committee. I think it does very valuable work, and I am certain in this respect the Government would very much welcome any help they could get from the Publications Committee, which is in a very much better position than the Treasury or the Stationery Department for making any discrimination, and deciding that certain documents need not be printed. If the Publications Committee will make recommendations as to economising in the printing of Parliamentary papers of one sort and another, I am certain that will be of great assistance to the Treasury, and will be carefully considered. I should warmly welcome any recommendation that comes with the authority of the Publications Committee.
The hon. Member who is apparently at present leading the Liberal party is particularly interested in the "London Gazette." I have no doubt he will be extremely gratified and probably surprised to know that we make something like £25,000 a year out of the Gazette. He quoted certain advertisement rates of notices which have to be put into the "London Gazette," and said they are exceptionally low. They are not ordinary commercial rates, which are much more remunerative. An hon. Member opposite suggested that we were very extravagant in the sort of paper we supply to Members of Parliament, and he thought we might economise in the stationery. Apropos of that I should like to take the Committee into my confidence with regard to a little experiment of my own in economy. I have myself been in the habit, in the more wealthy and more properous days of the country, as many other Members have been in the habit, when we were going to make a speech, of taking a few of these large, long envelopes, which were particularly useful for making a few notes. I brought it about that a certain number of scribbling pads were placed about in different parts of the House for the use of Members. I am not making any accusation against any party or any individual, but the fact remains that, instead of the scribbling pads being used as I had anticipated from time to time by Gentlemen who were going to make a speech, they all disappeared from the precincts of the House, not leaving even so much as a trace of the cardboard
backs. That sort of matter requires more active assistance from the House if it is to be carried into effect with really economical results.

Mr. W. BAKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to two definite questions that were put to him. One was in regard to the origin of the typewriters and labour-saving machines that are being introduced, and the other is a question of first-class importance with regard to the stocks of paper that are accumulated by the Stationery Office and the Departments, and which are not shown in the accounts.

Mr. McNEILL: I am not sure whether I can really give accurate answers. I said there had been a great depletion of stocks. If the hon. Member wants me to go into greater particularity and to show exactly what the stocks were at the commencement of the financial year, I am afraid I am not in a position to do so, and could not at a moment's notice obtain the information. If he will put a question down, I shall be happy to get the information.

Mr. GILLETT: Would it not be possible in making estimates of stocks of goods, to let us know how much there is at the beginning of the year, so that we may add that to the amount of money spent during the year?

Mr. McNEILL: I should not like to say off-hand whether it would be convenient to do that or not. I do not know that that particular form of information would really be of very much use. As regards the nationality of these labour-saving devices, I am afraid it is a fact that British workmanship has not produced as yet a very good article. Almost all the best typewriting machines are still of American make. There are only three British-made typewriters, as far as my information goes, now on the market, the British Empire, the Barlock and the Imperial, all practically new designs, and the Stationery Office is at present testing them. With regard to calculating machines, I am not able to say exactly what is the nationality of each. They are very expensive machines, some costing as much as £130 I cannot tell from the names, and I have not the information as to their source of origin, but my impression is that here again the Americans are still far ahead of us in the production of this particular
article. But with regard to typewriters, wherever we can find a British machine which is at all equal in efficiency to foreign-made machine, we will certainly give the preference to the British article.

Mr. BECKETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us information about the disposal of surplus publications as waste? Are they all sold, and if so, are they sold by tender?

Mr. McNEILL: I really cannot say for certain. I presume they are, but they have a very small market. There is no form of literature which is less likely to have a general market than old Blue Books.

Mr. BECKETT: I know they have not a general market, but, I thought there must be considerable quantities of them left from time to time, and I wondered what is done with them.

Mr. McNEILL: I really cannot answer that question straight off. It never occurred to me. I know there is £18,000 a year for waste paper.

Captain MACMILLAN: I should like to press the point that the Government should take some steps to allow the Publications Committee to review the publications circulated and printed. It is not merely the circulation of these publications that entails expense. The mere circulation of a few extra copies is a very small item compared with the original cost of composing them. I imagine that a great number of them are publications which have to be produced under the provisions of Acts of Parliament, and in order to reduce the number legislation would be necessary. Therefore, the matter is really a very pressing one, and if nothing is done this spring we shall have to wait another year. I would therefore, press the point whether the Government could not take some prompt measure which would lead to this desirable end.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. R. DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman has been very courteous in his reply to the questions raised on this side of the Committee. He made a statement which I should like to have cleared up. He said that some of the increased expenditure arose in connection with the introduction of the widows' pensions scheme.
That, of course, is obvious. Is it not a fact that, although this expenditure is shown here, the main expenditure on this account will be recoverable under the pensions scheme later on?

Mr. McNEILL: That is so. In reply to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan), I do not think I can go beyond what I have said. I do not know to what extent there are any powers of this sort. It would be very difficult for the Treasury or the Stationery Office to discriminate, unless they had some authority more than they have now from the House. That is why I referred to the Publications Committee. I can promise the hon. Member that the whole matter shall be looked into as carefully as possible, with a view to seeing whether any economy in that direction is possible.

Question put, and agreed to.

OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,331, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings.

Mr. W. BAKER: It does not appear to be wise to wait for the Minister to make a statement. One Vote has gone through without discussion because I waited a little too long for the Minister's explanation. I should like some information in regard to this Vote. Under heading "B," Travelling Expenses, the original Estimate was £33,500, an increase of £2,000 over the previous year. In the passage of time that original Estimate has been increased, with the result that an additional £4,000 is required. I have gone into the original Estimate in the hope of ascertaining exactly the division between foreign travel and home travel, on which the sum has been expended, and I regret to say that the original Estimate does not contain even a simple analysis of the £33,500. In discussing a matter of this magnitude, the Committee are entitled to some sort of explanatory statement which would give them some idea how the money is expended, and in what direction. It may very well be that the amount spent is largely for the expenses of architects
and other persons going abroad. We were told two or three days ago that an architect went to Helsingsfors in order to report on the Legation there. It may well be that an architect will go to Tokio for a similar purpose. How much money is expended on travelling overseas, and how much is expended on travelling in this country?
There is a further question, in regard to civil pay arrears. The Supplementary Estimate refers to the provision for payment of arrears of civil pay for certain civil servants employed in the Office of Works who served in His Majesty's Forces during the Great War. Has the Treasury yet given the hon. Member's Department a decision on a number of points of interpretation which are still outstanding so far as this judgment of the House of Lords is concerned. I understand that points of interpretation and difficulty are still outstanding, although the case was originally started six or seven years ago. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will do everything possible in his Department to secure an early settlement of any difficulties which may be receiving the consideration of the Treasury at the moment. It is important that a decision should be expedited, because many months have passed since the last judgment was given, and there seems to be no reason why the whole case should not be settled.

Major KINDERSLEY: With respect to the item for travelling allowances, I gather that this has been partly spent in architects travelling from the Office of Works to supervise the maintenance and repairs of buildings abroad. May I suggest that at a place like Helsingfors there are probably excellent architects, very efficient men. I cannot see why it is necessary to send people out from the Office of Works, instead of employing an architect on the spot who could probably he found to do the work equally well and make an efficient report to the Office of Works.

Mr. GILLETT: In regard to civil pay, I gather from the footnote that the Department had no idea that these claims were coming in, otherwise, I presume, the figure world have been in the original Estimate. Are any more claims of the same kind likely to come in in the future, or is the hon. Member satisfied
that this item closes the expense? With respect to travelling expenses, a suggestion has been made, in connection with the economy campaign carried out by certain hon. Members opposite, that officials should be asked to travel third class instead of first class. Seeing that the Minister is asking for more money, I presume that economy has not been put into effect. Is there any intention to do anything on those lines, or is the same procedure as in the past being carried out?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): This is a very much smaller tote than the last Vote, and I hope we shall get it all the quicker. Hon. Members will be relieved to hear that there is no furniture in this Vote. Perhaps I had better make a general statement in regards to the Vote, because the questions that have been asked will be answered in the statement. Of the £4,000 travelling expenses, £3,000 are in respect of home travelling and £1,000, in respect of foreign travelling. A good part of the expenditure in respect of home travelling is due to the supervision of ancient monuments. The Office of Works is the guardian of most of the ancient monuments throughout the country which have been taken over by the Government. Part of the expense is also due to the fact that during the last year various proposals have been made, some of them by hon. Members in this House, that further monuments should be placed under the guardianship of the Office of Works, or should be transferred to them as their property.
This involves a good deal of travelling. We have inspectors who do this work, and they have to travel about in order to advise the Office of Works. We had a proposal recently from the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacKenzie Livingstone) that we should take over some ancient monument in which he was interested. I do not know whether in that case we had to send an inspector, but usually when we get these proposals we have to send inspectors to advise the Office of Works on the subject. There are consultations and surveys, and then a report. During the present year, nine monuments of importance were placed under the guardianship of the Office of Works. I have the names of those monuments, but I will not read them unless
hon. Members ask for them. In 10 other cases proposals were made that we should take over the guardianship of monuments, and in each of these cases I think we had to send an inspector to report to the Office of Works. It is extremely difficult, in fact it is impossible to estimate in advance, what proposals are going to be made to the Office of Works on this subject in any year.
Another reason for the increased expenditure is this—I think it will appeal to the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth)—that a large part is due to the desire of the Department to effect all possible reductions in expenditure. This has involved during the course of the year personal investigations by officers of the Department in regard to the demands made by other Departments for new buildings, maintenance and furniture. Whenever a Department makes a demand for an extra building, or for furniture or maintenance, we do our best to keep expenditure down. We send someone to advise whether the extra expenditure is really necessary. In regard to our own Department, we make a very close investigation into the accommodation for the staff, and of the maintenance of the Office of Works itself. The more insistent the demand for economy, the more insistent the pressure brought to bear upon the Office of Works, the greater necessity there is for investigation, and expenditure on travelling expenses must arise.
I was asked a question about foreign travel. Certain investigations abroad are absolutely necessary in connection with urgent accommodation for the diplomatic and consular services. We take care, whenever we can, to use expert local advice, but in certain cases it is not possible to get such advice. Of this £1,000 spent abroad, £500 was spent in sending an inspector, a member of the staff, to Tokyo in regard to the reconstruction of the Embassy there and the Consulate at Yokohama. Both the Embassy and the Consulate were completely destroyed in the great earthquake. We had hoped to rely on contractors in Tokyo to advise us. Unfortunately a month or two ago they said that they could not take the responsibility on their shoulders. We were left in the lurch and we had no alternative but to send someone abroad. That cost £500. Then we
had to send someone to China in regard to certain questions in China and Shanghai.
We had to spend £300 on a mission of three officers to Russia. They had to go to Petrograd in order, if possible, to recover and dispose of the furniture and effects, belonging to the British Government, that had been seized by the Soviet Government during the Russian Revolution. That cost £300, and we recovered £12,000 worth of effects. Therefore, this increase in travelling expenses, under all the heads, may represent enormous savings of public money in other directions. Most of the effects recovered were disposed of in Russia. They were valued at £12,000. I understand that practically all were disposed of. The value of the whole was £12,000 sterling. Then I was asked a question about an item of "civil pay (arrears), £1,421." That item is merely due to the payment of arrears of salary to certain officers of the Department. The claims which were due to the action before the House of Lords did not come in in time for us to include this item in the main Estimate. I understand that there are no more claims to come in.

Colonel WOODCOCK: I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that there were four inspectors. Is the "travelling" only travelling, or does it include the whole of the expanses? I do not think the four inspectors could spend that amount if they travelled day and night. A question was also asked about first-class and third-class railway fares for civil servants. Would the hon. Gentleman state what is the status which determines whether an official should travel first-class or third-class?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: "Travelling" includes subsistence. With regard to first-class or third-class travelling, that question is still under consideration by the Treasury.

Mr. W. BAKER: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his further information. I wish to ask some further questions about the furniture, of which we have heard for the first time. The hon. Gentleman considers that his Department has done remarkably well in sending this mission to Russia in order to trace furniture which was eventually sold for £12,000. Having regard to the character given by some to our friends
the Russians, I think the members of the mission were very fortunate to find the furniture. Be that as it may, the Government have apparently secured £12,000 either as the result of selling the furniture or as compensation for furniture which has disappeared. That point perhaps the Minister will make clear. I submit that, in view of the probable early recognition of the Russian Government, it is not altogether wise or economic to dispose of these effects, seeing that they will have to be replaced at higher prices when a change of policy takes place. I would like to be told exactly where the furniture was found, whether it was sold for £12,000, or whether the money was received as compensation from the Russian Government.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The mission was sent over in order to recover the effects that had been left behind in Petrograd and one other place. The chief part of the effects was furniture. Some of it was transferred to other Embassies. A little was brought back here and the rest was disposed of. The value of what was recovered was £12,000 sterling. We were certainly justified in sending the mission. It cost only £300 and we were able to recover £12,000.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Does that £12,000 appear in the Appropriation Account?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: This furniture was presumably recovered in Russia. I understand it has been taken away to other capitals in Europe. What we are suggesting is, would it not have been better to have left it in Russia?

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Is it in order to follow this furniture about the world I understand that we are discussing travelling expenses. Furniture has been mentioned only as a reason for sending the mission to Russia. Surely we are not in order in following the furniture about the world?

Mr. W. BAKER: The Minister having introduced this furniture and having given its value as a justification for the expenditure in the Supplementary Estimate, I submit that it is in order for us to discuss it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): The Parliamentary Secretary
first mentioned the question of furniture. At the time the hon. and gallant Member raised his point of Order I was trying to ascertain how furniture came into the question at all.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is my fault for making too long a speech. I gave the details in order to supply hon. Members with as much information as possible. The only point is that there was certain property of the Government left in Russia. It had been taken during the Russian Revolution. It belonged to the Office of Works, and we were anxious to recover it because it was valuable property. A mission of three was sent over to Petrograd and Moscow. When they got there the property was found to be worth £12,000. It cost £300 to get it; That is the whole point.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My point is quite relevant. We are asked to vote £300 for the expenses of this mission. The only question is whether the Government were well advised in removing the furniture to other capitals instead of leaving it in Russia with a view to its use when an Embassy is re-started in that country.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I submit that the speech of the hon. Member is completely out of Order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss the question of the furniture being sent to other capitals. The only question before the Committee relates to the travelling expenses of the mission that was sent to investigate the matter.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Surely it is in order, on the salaries and expenses of these gentlemen, to ask whether what they did was one thing or another, and to criticise what they did if we think it was not desirable in the circumstances?

Commander WILLIAMS: The Minister made his case that £300 had been spent and the Government got back £12,000. What proportion of the total claim did that £12,000 represent? I want to know whether we have good value in the £12,000, or only a small percentage of what we ought to have?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That would be quite out of Order.

Mr. SCURR: There is one point that I do not follow. I understood the Minister
to say that part of this travelling expense was due to the fact that £500 had been spent on a mission to Tokio and Yokohama, that the Consular office and the Embassy had been destroyed in the earthquake, and that it was anticipated that a local firm of contractors would have been able to carry out the work. I also understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the Office of Works found themselves left in the lurch by reason of the fact that the contractors on the spot could not undertake this particular work. Is this sum of £500 simply voted on account in respect of certain expenditure which is going on at Tokio or Yokohama, and is it necessary that this mission should remain there for some time, or is this Vote in respect of completed work? If the work is completed, I should like to know how many persons constituted the mission which has cost such a large sum?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In reply to the question put by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), we were bound to leave it to the officers who went out there to make up their minds as to this transaction, and I think in this case the result has fully justified their visit. They have been able to get some of this property, and I am sure they got as much of it as was possible. This property was not otherwise recoverable and might have been lost for ever so far as His Majesty's Government was concerned, but they did recover a good deal of it, and I think we have reason to be satisfied with what they did. Regarding the question put by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), I would point out that the mission which went to Tokio left last May and returned last November. Therefore, they were absent for nearly six months, and I do not myself think that £500 is an excessive sum for that purpose. I have already explained the reason why they went there. It was because we could not find anybody on the spot who was willing to go into the matter and investigate and report.

Mr. SCURR: Does that apply to Yokohama also?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, it includes both Yokohama and Tokio.

Mr. LANSBURY: As shown here, the item "travelling expenses" represents the amount of travelling necessary in
connection with the supervision of building and maintenance work both at home and abroad. I think it should have been more fully explained.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The whole matter was explained when the hon. Member was not here.

Mr. LANSBURY: I know, and I am not complaining that the hon. Gentleman did not explain the matter to the Committee. I think a fuller explanation ought to appear on the Estimate, which otherwise is very misleading. What on earth has the inspection of furniture at Petrograd to do with building and maintenance work? Whoever is responsible for the explanatory note might have explained matters at a little greater length and told us what the hon. Gentleman told the Committee. We are not all able to sit here all the time. I enjoy listening to the Under-Secretary very much because of his courtesy and good will towards us, but, as I complained fore we are supposed to have explanatory notes, yet these notes do not explain that for which the money is being used. I do not know if it is in order to raise the question of the policy of removing this furniture. I understand it to be the intention even of the most anti-Russian and anti-Bolshevist Members on some occasions to—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that on this Vote it is not open to hon. Members to pursue the question of the policy of removing this furniture.

Mr. LANSBURY: I understand £300 has been spent on sending three gentlemen to decide whether we are to get our properly back or not and what we are to do with it. Surely I can call in question their judgment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The point has already been ruled.

Mr. LANSBURY: I respectfully ask when I can raise the question of the soundness of the advice of these Gentlemen—if it is on their advice that we have moved this furniture. As I understand it, there is every prospect that in the near future we shall send an Ambassador to Russia, and then we shall probably have a Supplementary Estimate for more furniture.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Estimate before us deals with the travelling expenses of the gentlemen who went to Petrograd. The removal of the furniture is not an item in the Estimate, and we have nothing to do with it.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I wish to challenge the right of the First Commissioner of Works to send these gentlemen to Russia. It has been a waste of money and of the time of these gentlemen, who are, I expect, distinguished civil servants and who might have been engaged on more useful work. I move the reduction as a protest against sending them on any such errand. I think a more foolhardy proposal and a more foolhardy policy than that of moving this furniture from the Petrograd Embassy has never been put before the Committee.

Mr. HARDIE: I wish to know who instructed these gentlemen to go on this mission? It is quite evident that this item of expenditure is unnecessary.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: On a point of Order. As I understood the ruing of the Chair was that it was not in Order to discuss policy in this matter, and I submit that if we are going to go back on the question suggested by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), we are going beyond the discussion of the mere question of this £300 expenditure and going into matters of policy.

Mr. LANSBURY: Surely we can discuss whether the money ought to have been spent or not.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Obviously it is open to discussion as to whether these gentlemen ought to have been sent at all or not.

Mr. HARDIE: I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, are indebted for the instructions which you are getting from hon. Members opposite. I have asked a question relating to the origin of this Estimate, and no hon. or right hon. Member opposite has the right, because of his lack of knowledge of the Rules, to waste the time of the Committee by these interruptions. My question is quite in order. Who gave instructions for this expenditure? The statement of the Tinder-Secretary clearly shows the
honesty with which these men were treated by the Bolshevists in this country, which is supposed to have been made a hell upon earth. They found themselves dealing with men who were quite honest, and, if this subject had been treated as an ordinary matter of dealing between men and between nations, there was not the slightest need for this expense. I observe a figure of £2,000 shown as anticipated saving. Is that due to a previous expenditure on something which was abnormal, or is it due to new economical arrangements? It seems to me that when we come down to the details of the business of running the Government we get far too little information. We are told we must practice economy in printing, and it is for that reason I must ask the Under-Secretary to reply to my questions.

Mr. PONSONBY: The Under-Secretary said that £500 was the cost of sending this mission to Yokohama and Tokio, and that there was nobody on the spot who could be entrusted with the work. The Office of Works has resident officers in many capitals, and I understood there was one in Japan. Would it not have been cheaper if the resident officer had prepared plans and sketches and done the necessary work, instead of sending out a mission?

Mr. SCURR: On a point of Order. The Estimate states that the item "travelling expenses" means the expenses of the travelling necessary in connection with the supervision of building and maintenance work both at home and abroad I submit that this sum of £300 is not a provision for building and maintenance work, but is for work of an entirely different character, and does not come under this Vote.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think these words must be taken in a wider sense.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) about the saving, I ought to have mentioned in my original remarks that this saving of just over £2,000 is due to two causes. One is that the Department were able to save the fees of estate agents by disposing of most of these estates without the assistance of agents. In order to save money wherever we could, we disposed of these
estates without the intervention of agents. The other reason was that we were able to cut down the expenditure on telegrams. In reply to the question put by the hon. Gentleman the late Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ponsonby), the Office of Works has an officer at Shanghai, but not one at Tokio. There was nobody on the spot, and the contractors at the last moment said they could not take the responsibility of advising us. As it was such an enormously big question, that required very experienced advice, we thought it best to send somebody out to investigate it on the spot. If we had had somebody on the spot, we should have utilised his services, but we had not.

Mr. SCURR: As I am in no way satisfied with the explanation given by the hon. Member, I shall support the Amendment. I raised a point of order, and you, Captain FitzRoy, ruled that these words have to be taken in a wider sense than they appear here, but I think the Government are guilty somewhat of sharp practice in putting this Estimate down in this way. Here we have a special piece of work done by these men, who were sent over for the purpose. No doubt, it was a very enjoyable journey, and three gentlemen in His Majesty's service will now have a better appreciation of Russia than they had before, but I do not think it is our business to provide public money in order that civil servants should know something of the conditions prevailing in Russia. I think this matter could have been settled in a friendly fashion between our own Government and the Government of

Russia. By reason of the fact that they have been able to retrace and recover furniture to the value of £12,000, it is evident that they could have met with very little difficulty at all, and I think the question could have been settled by communications through the ordinary channels of communication between Governments, without wasting public money in this way.

I also think the other mission which has been referred to, namely, the mission to Tokio and Yokohama, has been a waste of money. It no doubt very nice to send an expert of the Civil Service to visit China and Japan, and I think that any hon. Member of this House would be only too pleased to get such a visit as that at the public expense. We are told that the Government have someone at Shanghai who could have done this work and why should he not have been called upon, instead of the Government sending someone out all the way from London? This sort of thing is disclosing all the way through that the Government, who are posing as being interested in public economy and telling us that they will shortly introduce a Bill to deal with economy, are at present wasting the public money in a disgraceful fashion.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 231: Noes, 103.

Division No. 16.]
AYES.
[6.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brass, Captain W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Albery, Irving James
Briggs, J. Harold
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Briscoe, Richard George
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Clarry, Reginald George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Atkinson, C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Cope, Major William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burman, J. B.
Couper, J. B.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)


Balniel, Lord
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.
Caine, Gordon Hall
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Berry, Sir George
Campbell, E. T.
Cunliffe, Sir Joseph Herbert


Betterton, Henry B.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Blundell, F. N.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Ropner, Major L.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rye, F. G.


Elveden, Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Loder, J. de V.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Looker, Herbert William
Skelton, A. N.


Fermoy, Lord
Lord, Walter Greaves
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Fielden, E. B.
Lumley, L. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Smithers, Waldron


Forrest, W.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
MacIntyre, Ian
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Frece, Sir Walter de
McLean, Major A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Ganzoni, Sir John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gates, Percy
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Gee, Captain R.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Storry-Deans, R.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Capt. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Gower, Sir Robert
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Merriman, F. B.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moles, Thomas
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hanbury, C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Harland, A.
Moore Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Harlington, Marquess of
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wells, S. R.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Haslam, Henry C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Hawke, John Anthony
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nuttall, Ellis
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Oakley, T.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pennefather, Sir John
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hills, Major John Walter
Penny, Frederick George
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hilton, Cecil
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Womersley, W. J.


Hogg, Rt, Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Philipson, Mabel
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Homan, C. W. J.
Pielou, D. P.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ramsden, E.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Wragg, Herbert


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remer, J. R.



Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Rentoul, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and




Major Hennessy.


NOES.


Ammon, Charles George
Duncan, C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.


Baker, Walte.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lansbury, George


Barnes, A.
Gillett, George M.
Lee, F.


Barr, J.
Gosling, Harry
Livingstone, A. M.


Batey, Joseph
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lowth, T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Greenall, T.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Briant, Frank
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacLaren, Andrew


Broad, F. A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Bromfield, William
Grundy, T. W.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Bromley, J.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick


Buchanan, G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris, R. H.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Charleton, H. C.
Hardie, George D.
Naylor, T. E.


Clowes, S.
Harris, Percy A.
Owen, Major G.


Cluse, W. S.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Palin, John Henry


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hayes, John Henry
Pethick Lawrence, F. W.


Connolly, M.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.


Dalton, Hugh
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Davies, Evart (Ebbw Vale)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ritson, J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Dennison, R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.




Scurr, John
Thorne, W. (Went Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Townend, A. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Viant, S. P.
Windsor, Walter


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Wright, W.


Snell, Harry
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Stephen, Campbell
Warne, G. H.



Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sutton, J. E.
Whiteley, W.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T.


Taylor, R. A.
Wiggins, William Martin
Henderson.


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,231, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 235.

Division No. 17.]
AYES.
[7.0 p.m.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scurr, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, Walter
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hardie, George D.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barnes, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Barr, J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Stephen, Campbell


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sutton, J. E.


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Taylor, R. A.


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Townene, A. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Clowes, S.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Cluse, W. S.
Livingstone, A. M.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Collins Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lowth, T.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Warne, G. H.


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacLaren, Andrew
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dalton, Hugh
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Whiteley, W.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wiggins, William Martin


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Dennison, R.
Morris, R. H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Duncan, C.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth. Bedwellty)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Gosling, Harry
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Greenall, T.
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Henderson.


Grundy, T. W.
Scrymgeour, E.



NOES.


Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brass, Captain W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Briggs, J. Harold
Clarry, Reginald George


Albery, Irving James
Briscoe, Richard George
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Couper, J. B.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'v)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)


Atkinson, C.
Burman, J. B.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Balniel, Lord
Butt, Sir Alfred
Cunliffe, Sir Joseph Herbert


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Caine, Gordon Hall
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Campbell, E. T.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Berry, Sir George
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Blundell, F. N.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Boyd Carpenter, Major A.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Elveden, Viscount


England, Colonel A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ropner, Major L.


Everard, W, Lindsay
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rye, F. G.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Loder, J. de V.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Looker, Herbert William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fermoy, Lord
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Fielden, E. B.
Lumley, L. R.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Forrest, W.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Skelton, A. N.


Frece, Sir Walter de
MacIntyre, Ian
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McLean, Major A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macmillan, Captain H.
Smithers, Waldron


Gates, Percy
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gee, Captain R.
Macquisten, F. A.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Goff, Sir Park
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gower, Sir Robert
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Margesson, Captain D.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Grotrian, H. Brent
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Storry-Deans, R.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Merriman, F. B.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hanbury, C.
Moles, Thomas
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harland, A.
Moore Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hartington, Marquess of
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Haslam, Henry C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Ward, Lt.-Cot. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hawke, John Anthony
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wells, S. R.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nuttall, Ellis
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hills, Major John Walter
Oakley, T.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Hilton, Cecil
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pennefather, Sir John
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Penny, Frederick George
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Homan, C. W. J.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)
Philipson, Mabel
Womersley, W. J.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Pielou, D. P.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ramsden, E.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Jephcott, A. R.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wragg, Herbert


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Remer, J. R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rantoul, G. S.



Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Major Hennessy and Major Cope.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."

Original Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 104.

Division No. 18.]
AYES.
[7.8 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Albery, Irving James
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brass, Captain W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Briggs, J. Harold
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Appiin, Colonel R. V. K.
Briscoe, Richard George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. At. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Atkinson, C.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Clarry, Reginald George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Bainlel, Lord
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burman, J. B.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Cope, Major William


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Cooper, J. B.


Berry, Sir George
Butt, Sir Alfred
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)


Bethell, A.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Betterton, Henry B.
Caine, Gordon Hall
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Campbell, E. T.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Cunliffe, Sir Joseph Herbert
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Remer, J. R.


Dalziel, Sir Davison
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rentoul, G. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jephcott, A. R.
Richardson Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Ropner, Major L.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rye F. G.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lamb, J. O.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Elveden, Viscount
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


England, Colonel A.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Loder, J. de V.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Looker, Herbert William
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Smith, R. W. (Aherd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lumley, L. R.
Smith, Carirgton, Neville W.


Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Smithers, Waldron


Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Forrest, W.
MacIntyre, Ian
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Foster, Sir Harry S.
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.
Storry-Deans, R.


Gates, Percy
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Gee, Captain R.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gower, Sir Robert
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Merriman, F. B.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Moles, Thomas
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hanbury, C.
Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Harland, A.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wells, S. R.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hartington, Marquess of
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Haslam, Henry C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hawke, John Anthony
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nuttall, Ellis
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Oakley, T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
O'Neill, Major At. Hon. Hugh
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Owen, Major G.
Wolmer, Viscount


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pennefather, Sir John
Womersley, W. J.


Hills, Major John Walter
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hilton, Cecil
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Philipson, Mabel
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pielou, D. P.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Homan, C. W. J.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wragg, Herbert


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ramsden, E.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper



Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Rees, Sir Beddoe
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Major Hennessy and Captain




Margesson.


NOES.


Ammon, Charles George
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dennison, R.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Baker, Walter
Duncan, C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Barnes, A.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Barr, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kelly, W. T.


Batey, Joseph
Gillett, George M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gosling, Harry
Lansbury, George


Briant, Frank
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lee, F.


Broad, F. A.
Greenall, T.
Livingstone, A. M.


Bromfield, William
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lowth, T.


Bromley, J.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Grundy, T. W.
MacLaren, Andrew


Buchanan, G.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Charleton, H. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Montague, Frederick


Clowes, S.
Hardie, George D.
Morris, R. H.


Cluse, W. S.
Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Naylor, T. E.


Connolly, M.
Hayes, John Henry
Palin, John Henry


Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.




Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Whiteley, W.


Riley, Ben
Sutton, J. E.
Wiggins, William Martin


Ritson, J.
Taylor, R. A.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Scrymgeour, E.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Scurr, John
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Townend, A. E.
Windsor, Walter


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wright, W.


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Viant, S. P.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wallhead, Richard C.



Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Steven
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Snell, Harry
Warne, G. H.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T.


Stephen, Campbell
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Henderson.

MINES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,757, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The subject of this Estimate is entirely restricted to two matters, which could not have been anticipated in the original Estimate. I refer to the setting up of the Coal Commission and the granting of the coal subsidy as one subject, the other being the preparation of a Catalogue of Abandoned Mines. I should like to explain what I mean by thin "Catalogue of Abandoned Mines." Early in the year there had been a series of accidents due to the influx of water from abandoned works. A Committee inquired into it, and they recommended that we should try to obtain the plans of mines abandoned before 1872. Though I was warned that this would mean a Supplementary Estimate, I felt that seeing that it was a matter of such great importance, the House would certainly wish that it should be hastened on its quickly as possible, and I am very glad to say we have been able to get a very large proportion, and in a very short time hope to have a complete catalogue, to which everyone can refer in order to find out what is the possibility of working in close proximity to disused mines. We have had a good deal of work to discover where the various plans were, but we have searched every possible place, and the result is we have got a very large number. These were matters which could not he anticipated when our original Estimates were presented.
Under Subhead A, of the £4,225 additional sum required, £800 is for statistical information, which we had to get
for the Royal Commission. That, of course, involved an immense amount of work on the part of officers in my Department. The Commission, as the Committee know, is working extremely hard, and requires an enormous amount of additional information, which has involved a great deal of overtime on the part of officers of the Department. Then there is a sum of £2,102 out of the £4,225 for the additional staff which we have had to appoint to deal with the Subvention. It will be obvious that a great deal of extra work is involved in dealing with the Subvention, and additional staff to that extent was required. The third item under Subhead A, £1,323, is for preparing the catalogue of abandoned mines, which obviously requires a good deal of sorting, classifying and arranging, and that has involved certain additional staff. Under Subhead B. Travelling and Incidental Expenses, the item of £900 has been incurred through dealing with the Subvention and for tracing these plans. It will be apparent to everyone that the Subvention has led to a considerably larger amount of travelling by officials.
Sub-head EE, "Employment of firms of Accountants on Audits in connection with the Coal Mining Industry Subvention," represents, I am sure, a saving of a good deal more than the sum of £12,500 against this Item. Sub-head H, "Appropriations in Aid," £318, represents the amount which is being recovered in respect of salaries of officers in my Department. I should be glad to answer any further questions, but this is the general account of what this Estimate is for, namely, two things that could not have been anticipated before the Subvention and the Royal Commission, and the preparation of a catalogue of abandoned mines.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to ask one or two questions, but, first of all, I want to make a protest. I
thank the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the close attention he is giving to these Votes. It is quite refreshing to find someone from the Treasury present. I would suggest to him that the information as to the amounts for overtime, for additional staff, and so on, might just as well have been set out on the Paper. No extra expense for paper need have been incurred, as there is half a page of Page 17 not occupied. It would have enabled hon. Members to see really what we are discussing. It is not very convenient to have the amounts explained at the last minute, when they might just as well have been on the Paper some days ago. I really think the Treasury would save the time of the Committee and of the Government if they gave more information in their Supplementary Estimate.
Having made that protest, which I hope will produce good, the questions I have, to ask are these: There is £800 for overtime, paid to the officials of the Department. I am very surprised to hear that the permanent officials—I suppose Grade 1 officers—are paid overtime. I thought they were not. In these controversies at present going on about the hours of work of civil servants, we are told that really civil servants work much longer hours than are laid down, sometimes as much as 12 hours. I did not know they were paid overtime. If it were the typists, messengers, and manual labourers who were paid overtime, certainly, but I did not think it was the custom of salaried officers, who get holidays and full pay, to receive overtime payment.

Mr. R. McNEILL: The higher grades are not paid overtime. It is the clerical class, and those grades who are always paid overtime, and quite rightly, too.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I quite agree with what the right hon. gentleman says. That clears up the matter, but when the Secretary for Mines talked of officials of the Department, I did not visualise typists, sorters, and so on. I never heard of typists being called "officials" before. However, that clears that matter up, although I really think in these times, when there is acute unemployment among these office workers, excessive overtime should be avoided. It is not good for health. An extra staff should be taken on, and I am not sure
much extra expense would be incurred. Extra staff were taken on for part of this work in the preparation of the Catalogue, and therefore no question of principle is involved, and I think that should have been done in the case of the others.
With reference to the sum of £12,500 for analysing the figures of the colliery companies, in connection with the coal subsidy, this raises a very interesting question as to how thorough was the examination. In particular, did they only look into the books of the colliery companies or into the books of subsidiary companies as well? Did they examine the accounts of the companies which supply timber, rails, and equipment to the mines? I think this matter will be pursued by hon. Members above the Gangway, who have intimate knowledge of what is going on in the coalfields. Are the books of the companies, who sell the coal under different names, apparently with no connection with companies who produce the coal, examined? How thorough was that examination, because I made a speech a little time ago in the country in which I referred to the matter of the colliery companies making hidden profits in certain parts of the country by selling this timber to themselves actually through intermediaries who, of course, take some of the profits. I had a very sharp rejoinder from the Mineowners Association, who suggested that I was sufficiently employed without going into these matters. After that, I had a sheaf of letters from colliery managers and engineers and so on—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see how the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks are connected with this Vote.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Under Sub-head E.E. provision is made for the payment of fees for the auditing of the returns and figures furnished by the colliery companies and the sum of £12,500 is put down: and it seemed to me that on this I could ask how this money was employed in the examination of the accounts. The Secretary for Mines is familiar with this charge.

Colonel LANE FOX: The subvention is paid to the colliery companies and not to the subsidiary companies.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, but surely the colliery company that is really making a hidden profit in the way I have described have no right to get the subvention—not at all! The company can sell at an artificially low price to these apparently independent subsidiary companies. The matter is one which can only be discovered by the Department of the Secretary for Mines by a high-class accountant's examination, and if the money has gone in that way then it is very satisfactory indeed. There is evidence that this sort of thing is going on, and I should like to be sure. I have had a very remarkable correspondence on the subject from managers engineers, and others absolutely supporting and giving chapter and verse. The thing should be very fully explored by the Secretary for Mines. I make no charge at all against; the accountants employed by the Ministry or the Miners' Federation. The matter is one of instructions to be given by the hon. Gentleman's Department to the accountants of the Board of Trade. I hope no further subvention will be paid unless the Secretary for Mines is quite satisfied in the matter.

Mr. WARNE: I have nothing but praise for the Secretary for Mines. The Committee will remember the sad catastrophe that happened last March in Newcastle at a pit at Scotswood where an inrush of water took place, and there was loss of life. The inquiry that was promised has been held. Those of us who attended that inquiry are quite satisfied and understand exactly how the mistake was made. The catastrophe was caused through the colliery workings cutting into an abandoned mine. What I want to bring to the notice of the Secretary for Mines is this: The plan of the abandoned mine was known and was in the possession of the estate agent of the royalty owners, One colliery in the vicinity knew of the existence of that plan. The colliery where the unfortunate accident happened was quite unaware of the mine, or the existence of the plan. Now that this money has been spent, I want to say on behalf of the mining representatives in this House that they would not object to the Secretary for Mines spending a good deal more in order to get this catalogue fortified and brought up to date. If I understand the feeling of the House, as I noted it last April when the sorrow of this catastrophe was still hanging over the
Members of this House, I do not think that hon. Members on the other side—if I understood their feelings and their sympathy with the miners—would object to many more thousands being spent in order to try to avoid these terrible calamities in the mines.
When the money is being spent we want to make sure that the recording of these plans is going to be effective. What I want to suggest to the Secretary for Mines—perhaps he has already done it, but the matter needs emphasising—is: that these plans do not want to be simply recorded here in the Mines Department. Inspectors of the hon. Gentleman's Department travel about the districts and they want to be made fully aware of all the information possible in respect to these abandoned mines. All this information wants to be put into the working plans of the colliery. As I said one of the collieries concerned had full knowledge of the plan, and the other one had not. If the inspectors knowing about it had some sort of duty to see that the plans of an abandoned mine were brought to the notice of those concerned, and co-related with the actual working plans of the collieries that are working adjacent, it would be to the good. We want that done, because we are satisfied that if this is not done there may be more of these catastrophes overtaking the mining community. I will not further detain the Committee, but I trust the Secretary for Mines will go on and get this done, and will see that the information is put into the hands of the inspectors, and of the colliery companies; and we may be sure that what we had to witness last March, the sad catastrophe which overtook the miners, which could have been avoided had the plan been recorded, will, happily, be avoided in the future.

Mr. TINKER: I should like to ask the Secretary for Mines what districts show returns of more than 15d. per ton are getting the subvention, and whether he can tell me whether any district has been able to pay anything back? Is there in existence any district that has been able to provide in the way I suggest? The second point I want to ask about is this: We have a system like this: Take a district with six collieries in it. Colliery returns more than what has been taken to pay
the minimum, or 105 per cent. B returns 90 per cent. C returns 80 per cent. D returns 85 per cent. E returns 80 per cent. F returns 70 per cent. For the purpose of the thing being taken as a whole there is an average of 85 per cent. towards paying the minimum rates, and I understand that under Government agreement or subvention that would show 15 per cent. over the whole of the district short of paying the minimum wage under the 1924 agreement. Every colliery in that district will have 15 per cent. to be added to the wages paid, but one of the collieries already has 5 per cent. more than necessary to enable it to pay the wages. Is it getting another 15 per cent. on the top of that, and does that follow all the way down? Has the hon. Gentleman's accountants found out how many of these collieries have had money from the Government which have already made a profit, because it is a most important point in the governing of any future subvention. When we agreed to the subvention it was never with the idea that collieries that were making a profit should have a further profit from the Government. Some are making money out of the Government and out of the subvention. Has the Secretary for Mines any information on this point? Have his accountants been able to find oat, so that there is no doubt about it that that kind of thing is not going on? We want to be in readiness for May next in this matter, if it is continued—and I hope it will be continued in some form or another—but we want to see that the colliery companies making profits do not get further Government help.

Mr. RITSON: I want to emphasise what has been said with respect to this £12,500. If hon. Members take into account the thousands of lives that have been lost, which appeals to a practical miner always more than anything else, then this sum is a very small sum indeed. There should be more information sought in these particular areas such as we have heard about to-night. I would like to ask whether we have really experts who know the geography of the district or whether any note is taken of those people who have lived all their lives in the place and worked in the mines, some 30, some 40 and some 50 years? We have instances
of the kind in Durham in the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Richardson). Do the owners consult other than the managers, or do they make inquiries from the experiencel old men who have lived in the place and who know personally all about it? I think there ought to be some consideration given to these old miners in these areas where you always have a danger of a water leakage from an abandoned mine. We were talking a few moments ago about overtime for clerks in the Civil Service. We do not object to that, and I hope the Secretary for Mines will not be too rigid in seeing whether he cannot pay some of these people whose actual knowledge of these abandoned mines is greater than any of which we have heard lately. We want more plans at the colliery offices, and we ought to have them lying at the Miners' Associations in the different localities.
I should like to draw the attention of the Secretary for Mines to the Subhead E.E., "Employment of Firms of Accountants on Audit in connection with the Coal-mining Industry Subvention." What kind of returns do the colliery companies supply that all this money need be spent? Under the wages agreement there is a huge amount of accountancy going on, which costs us a huge amount of money, and surely we could get those figures easier and at less cost. I do not trust the accountancy of the Department of the right hon. Gentleman. I have had an application from a coalowner this week-end—I am just giving this as an instance; it happened to me, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), a coalowner in the county of Durham, who is a "diehard Tory," and who is, I believe, a distinguished relative of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He made application to me three years ago to say that he had some thousands of pounds which were due to the Government under decontrol, and that he could not get rid of it. I am prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman the name and address of the company. I took the matter up under the Labour Government, and wrote to the Secretary for Mines then and tried to explain the position to him, and his advisers did as they will do with the right hon. Gentleman, told him it was a lot of humbug.
This gentleman is a very distinguished coalowner. He has spoken to me on no less than three occasions, and has also spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street. He says that he wants to be rid of this money—that he is getting 4 per cent. on it, but that it is owing to the Government. If there be £10,000 or £11,000 in the possession of this individual which belongs to the Government, I am very much afraid there may be other owners in Durham, not so honest as he is in putting his case forward, who may be holding many more thousands of pounds At a time when the Government are professing to be very much interested in economy, surely inquiries ought to be made about these thousands of pounds left over from the days of the Coalition Government which they do not think fit to collect.
We are pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has begun to help us in the inquiries he is making as to accidents, but I do submit to him that he cannot put a cash value upon human lives. In the last accident that we had, at Scots- wood, all that has been spent so far has been about £40 for each of our men that were lost. I say to the Government, they would do well to spend all the money they can with the object of averting accidents. In that way they will give confidence to our men in their work and they will get returns from the men. Give us confidence in our lives and we will give you returns.

Mr. BARKER: We mining Members are very glad, indeed, that the Secretary for Mines is paying serious practical attention to the question of abandoned mines, and I would like to ask him one or two questions. In making inquiries with reference to abandoned mines, is there any time limit; how far does the inquiry go back? There was a case in North Staffordshire where a man was walking along a street in Hanley when, suddenly, the ground under his feet gave way, and he disappeared down a cavity of some hundreds of feet. No one knew there was an abandoned mine there. This catastrophe was the first information people had about it. Some 70 or 80 years ago a colliery had been worked within a quarter of a mile of the spot. No one knew what had become of the shaft and of the underground workings. Further, I would like to know who is responsible for filling up these abandoned
shafts? Is it the colliery company, or is it the Government? Sometimes these shafts are left exposed for very long periods. Sometimes they are merely covered over with planks and with earth, and when the planks rot the earth disappears. Sometimes they are bricked over and left to stand until the bricks fall down the shaft. There has been great laxity in the past with reference to these abandoned mines, and it would be interesting to hear from the Secretary for Mines what he has to say on the points which have been raised.
Another point—what is included in the definition "abandoned mines"? Does it include mines that have been out of production during the last two or three years, because, if so, I would like to know what steps the Secretary for Mines has taken to get them re-opened, or whether he has taken any steps at all; and whether any of the subsidy goes to indemnifying these colliery companies, thus putting a premium upon keeping mines closed instead of keeping them open? These are important questions and they interest us exceedingly. We think that if State money is to be used as a subsidy it should be used to the fullest extent in finding employment for the workmen in the industry. In my own area, within 1000 or 2000 yards of where I live, there are three collieries which have been closed during the last 12 months. Are those collieries in the list of abandoned mines? They are the Vivian Colliery, the Tillery Colliery and the Gray Colliery, all at Abertillery. How much, if anything, is paid out of the subsidy to the owners of these particular mines? We have had very little opportunity for a long time to ventilate our grievances with reference to the mining industry, and I am glad this Vote is down to-night, and hope we shall get some real information, and that- the Secretary for Mines will regard this Vote in a very serious light.

Mr. GRUNDY: The Secretary for Mines is entitled to our thanks for the steps he has taken towards getting plans of abandoned mines. As miners we appreciate that work. I would like the Secretary to take notice of this; it is not very often that I get up to speak in the House I want to know this—where he has failed to get plans of an abandoned mine and
he knows that mines are being worked in the vicinity, what steps is he taking in respect of those mines working in the vicinity? It appears to me that special precautions ought to be taken by mines near these abandoned workings, and that special notification ought to be given to them. As has been mentioned already by an hon. Member, in some cases where the Department fail to get plans of abandoned mines old men in the district may be able to give a lot of very valuable information. I have in mind a case where a man who worked at a pit that closed in 1882 was sent for by the management of an adjacent colliery and was able to point where the workings of the abandoned pit had run, of which they have not got plans.
Another point I wish to raise is whether the subsidy is being paid to mines which are making a profit. Has the Secretary for Mines noticed some of the evidence given by a colliery owner to the Coal Commission? He refused to send in his averages for the purpose of regulating the men's wages, but when he was asked if he had sent them in for the purpose of getting a subsidy he said, "Yes, that is money for nothing." That was Sir Charles Markham's evidence at the Coal Commission. Is this "money for nothing" in the shape of the subsidy going to be paid to collieries that are making a profit? I should particularly like the Secretary for Mines to deal with the first point, which I look upon as rather important.

Major KINDERSLEY: I want to ask the Secretary for Mines one question relating to Sub-head E.E., £12,500 for accountants employed by the Department to audit the returns and figures, furnished by the colliery companies, on which the subvention is computed. Why could not audited returns and figures have been supplied by the companies themselves? The Department might surely have asked them to supply such returns and figures, certified by a chartered accountant. There may be some reason why that could not be done, but, on the face of it, it seems to me unnecessary that the Government should have borne that cost instead of the colliery owners.

Mr. BATEY: The Supplementary Estimate which we are now discussing is regarded by some of us as the most important we have been dealing with
to-night. We have a very close connection with the Mines Department, and we are deeply interested in it. The next Vote deals with the Royal Commission, and I notice that in this Supplementary Estimate it is stated under "A" that £800 is required for information for the Royal Commission. As I want to say a word or two on the Royal Commission when we come to it, I was wondering whether I could deal with the Royal Commission now, or whether I should wait until we come to that Vote.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member had better wait till we come to that Vote.

Mr. BATEY: In this Estimate the Secretary for Mines tells us there is £800 for information to the Royal Commission. Why should we have that £800 under this Estimate and not under the Royal Commission Estimate, which deals with expenses for the Royal Commission? Before I proceed further, I would like to ask your ruling as to whether that £800 should not be under the next Vote rather than under this Vote.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As I understand the Vote, the £800 is in regard to the employment of men from the Mines Department at the Royal Commission—

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, that is so.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: —and to that extent it is not on the next Vote.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. BATEY: Yes, but I suppose the same argument will apply when we come to the Vote for the Coal Commission; it will be said that the expenditure is on account of the Mines Department. I agree with what has been said by hon. Members in regard to revising the catalogue of abandoned mines. I could wish that this revision had taken place years ago; as a matter of fact it should have taken place long before this. As soon as the Mines Department was set up it should have been one of its first duties. However, I am glad it has been done now; it is better late than never. But many lives would have been saved if it had been begun earlier. When the Secretary for Mines speaks of revising the catalogue of abandoned mines, I am only wondering what really the catalogue was like before this revision. I should like to know what
mines are to be included in the catalogue; how far back you are going in the revision; and whether it is the intention of the Secretary for Mines to sweep the country in order to find out what mines have been abandoned or whether he is merely going to apply to colliery owners and royalty owners and ask them to give him the information. In the north of England there are mines that have been abandoned for 200 and 300 years, and I doubt whether any colliery owner could tell the Secretary for Mines much about them.
I notice also that travelling expenses are provided for officials of the Mines Department in connection with gathering this informaton. Are these officials to go only to colliery offices and the offices of royalty owners in order to get this information, or will they be able to go all over the country and get it where-ever they can? But having got that information, having revised your catalogue, then I agree with hon. Members in saying that it is no use keeping this revised catalogue in the office of the Mines Department. It is no use there; it might just as well never be obtained. We want that revised catalogue to be used in this way. We want the Secretary for Mines to be able to give information to any coal owners who are working a pit which is anywhere near an abandoned mine, as well as a sketch of the old abandoned workings, so that we shall not have a repetition of the disaster that occurred in Northumberland in the early pat of last year. This is a subject in which we all are deeply interested, and as we are naturally much more interested in our own district than in any other, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me the number of abandoned mines he has been able to find in the county of Durham. Some of us have a fair knowledge of that county, and I am wondering whether he can inform us of the number of old abandoned mines that have been discovered in Durham, and whether he has been able to find any plans in connection with them.
I want to say a few words now on the item of £12,500 for accounting. The explanation is, "Employment of Firms of Accountants," and I should like the Secretary for Mines to tell us how many firms have been engaged, owing to the subsidy, in addition to his own staff at
the Mines Department. I should have thought that the Secretary for Mines might engage a firm of accountants, but instead of doing that he has engaged "firms of accountants." How many firms have been engaged? This is rather a large item, but although it is large it will not carry the Department up to the end of the time which is considered to be the limit of the subsidy. I take it that this £12,500 will only carry the Department up to the end of March and then—

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that it cannot carry the Department beyond the end of March. It must be spent or surrendered by the end of March.

Mr. BATEY: Yes, I agree.

The CHAIRMAN: The Department could not, under the Exchequer and Audit Act, get money now that they are going to spend in April.

Mr. BATEY: I am glad for once that the Chairman agrees with me, and I want to drive that lesson home to the Secretary for Mines. This Vote can only apply to the end of March, and after that we shall have another item for "firms of accountants." These firms of accountants have been employed by the Mines Department to check returns and figures; and that naturally raises some interesting questions in regard to these returns. When the Secretary for Mines was explaining this item, he said that although it was £12,500 in amount, they had saved more than that. I wonder whether he can tell us just how much money these firms of accountants have saved the Department. The impression I got was that the Secretary for Mines felt that the coalowners had been getting at him. He has not had the experience of coalowners that we have had for many long years; and we rather sympathise with him in his position. There are several questions I desire to put in relation to these returns. Do they chow a subsidy paid to men at the pithead when the pit is not working? Some of us feel a little sore on this point. We think the subsidy should not be paid to a single man employed at a colliery which is not working in order to keep it open. We have raised this matter again and again, and on one occasion the Secretary for Mines said that he did
not think it was very important. Perhaps it is not, but there are some of us who would not give the coalowners a single brass farthing where the collieries are not working.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. BATEY: It is certain that we shall not discuss anything so important to-night as this present Vote or the Estimate dealing with the Coal Commission. Anything that affects mines at the present time is by far the most important matter that the Committee can deal with. I want to ask the Secretary for Mines four or five questions. I have already put to him a question with regard to the returns that are supplied by these "firms of accountants." Another question, to which I was referring when the "count" took place, is this: whether the returns show, separately, a subsidy paid to pits which are not working. I hope the Secretary for Mines will be able to tell us the number of pits to which this subsidy is being paid, and whether these returns show the profits made by the coalowners on by-products. Colliery companies, especially in the County of Durham, do not show the profit on by-products. I should like the Secretary for Mines to tell us whether these returns show the profit owners make on the by-products as well as losses they will make on coal. My third question is: do these returns reveal any deduction in directors' fees? We have got several colliery companies in the North of England which own several collieries. Sometimes they work a few of those collieries and leave others idle. I want to know what happens when they keep some collieries idle. Do they lose some of these directors' fees?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing a question of policy, and on this Supplementary Vote that is not in order.

Mr. BATEY: I quite agree with you, Mr. Chairman. We have spent £12,500 upon Returns made by these accountants, and therefore I am anxious that we should get some useful information from them. We want Returns that will be useful not only during the time the subsidy is being paid, but Returns that will stand us in good stead for some years
to come, and it is because I want this information that I am putting these questions. My next question is, do these Returns reveal the amount paid per ton at each colliery for royalties? Whilst it may be true that the amount paid for royalties in some collieries is 6d. per ton that amount varies, and I know one colliery where the men received notice because the royalty owner wanted to be paid 3s. per ton.

Colonel LANE FOX: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. I would like to draw you attention to the fact that the question of royalties cannot possibly come under this Vote.

Mr. BATEY: I am not discussing royalties, and I am simply asking whether these returns show the amount paid per ton as royalties. My next question is do these returns show what really is included in costs other than wages. That is one of the items in our local departments that has bothered us terribly, because the coalowners can make that almost what they please. My last question is do these returns show the amount of coal sold for export, and the amount sold for domestic purposes, and especially the amount sold to the iron and steel industry. I would like the Secretary for Mines to answer those questions. In one of my questions I asked whether those returns showed the profits made on by-products, and if the Secretary for Mines will tell us that we shall be extremely glad because it is one of the things we have felt sore about for a long time. There is also in this Supplementary Estimate an item of £900 for the travelling expenses of the staff. I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us just what travelling there has been, where it has been to, and whether the officials of the Mines Department anticipated compelling Members of Parliament to travel third-class—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must now realise that he is beyond the line.

Mr. BATEY: I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us as much as ever he can in regard to this item for travelling and incidental expenses, which may cover such a multitude of sins. I would like to discuss this item for the subsidy. We believe that this Supplementary Estimate would not have been necessary at all, so
far as the subsidy is concerned, if it had not been for the failure of private enterprise.

The CHAIRMAN: With that remark I think the hon. Member expected that I should rise, and I do rise to say that he is quite out of order.

Mr. G. HALL: I rise to ask the Secretary for Mines if he can give the Committee the necessary information as to how far the work of revision has proceeded in regard to abandoned mines, and whether all the districts are included in this work. The previous speaker referred to the number of abandoned mines in the county of Durham, but what he said applies to almost every coal-mining area in the whole country. I want to emphasise that once the catalogues are complete we should have them distributed throughout the various coal centres, and they ought not to be kept at the Mines Department in London. This is very important, because hundreds of lives have been lost because this catalogue has not been revised years ago.
Then I come to the question of the £12,500 paid to firms of accountants in connection with the question of subvention. We realise that the Treasury cannot spend, as it did during the last five months of last year, some £12,000,000 or 213,000,000 without having the returns sent in by the colliery companies checked by accountants, but I should like to ask the Secretary for Mines whether he is satisfied, seeing that there are in the country some 3,000 collieries, owned by some 1,500 different companies, that all the returns submitted by those companies are checked quite as they should be? I would like to ask whether any information is sought in the coal-mining areas as to whether any exceptional repair work is going on underground, or whether there is any installation of new machinery or plant that is included in the returns submitted by the various colliery companies when they are asking for this subvention that is paid to them from month to month? I should also like to ask whether the subvention is paid to collieries that are not producing coal. We have in South Wales, unfortunately, in common with most of the coal areas in the country, a number of collieries that have been closed for some two or three years, and we are not satisfied in our minds that
the colliery companies who own those collieries are not participating in the amounts paid from time to time by the Treasury. I think the right hon. Gentleman should satisfy us this evening that these colliery companies are not paid any subvention in respect of mines that are closed.
Then I should like to come to the question whether moneys that have been over-paid to the colliery companies are refunded to the Treasury. -It is very interesting to note that in South Wales, during the month of December, just over £900,000 was paid in subvention, of which over £500,000 went to wages and £400,000 went to profits; and we had the very interesting disclosure that, while 2s. 7d. per ton went to wages, nearly 2s. per ton—about 1s. 11¾d.—went to profits. We understood that the subvention would only be paid, as far as profits were concerned, to the amount of 1s. 3d. per ton, but in South Wales, during December, there were owners who received profits—or, at least, the money was paid over equivalent to profits—of round about 2s. per ton. It would be very interesting to know how the accountants arrived at the amounts that were to be paid in South Wales during December, and, seeing that more than the 1s. 3d. in profits has been paid to various colliery owners, whether the accountants are going to set that amount off against the amount due for January, or whether the colliery companies are endeavouring to claim the difference between the 1s. 3d. and the 2s. that has been paid, in respect of losses in months prior to December. We would ask the Secretary for Mines to satisfy us on these points, because they are very important. We feel that almost all eyes in the mining industry are focussed upon the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, and, if he can satisfy us on some of the points that have been put to him this evening, it will clear away a great deal of misapprehension in connection with these questions.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I should like to put one or two questions to the Secretary for Mines. I am sure he will remember a question that I put to him some time ago, as to how much was paid in directors' fees. Now that he has the
returns before him, I think that probably he will be able to give me an answer to that question, and I would put it to him now quite plainly: Does the Return which has been submitted to him for audit show bow much has been paid for directors' fees? I would like also to ask how that amount compares with the wages paid to the workers—have the directors suffered a reduction in their payments, as the miners have These are two very important questions which our people are asking every day, and I think that, if the right hon. Gentleman can answer them, he will help us very considerably. I am reminded that even Mr. Evan Williams, who, I believe, is a director of some 12 or 13 companies, refused to tell anyone what he got from each one of them. If the Secretary for Mines can tell us, it will not only be a satisfaction to the mining community, but it will be a greater satisfaction still to the taxpayer, who has to pay this Subvention.
Then may I ask one further question? Can the right hon. Gentleman, from the return, tell us how much is spent on the houses, gardens, and all that kind of paraphernalia of directors, agents and managers? Is there anything in the return in respect of this expenditure? Does the return state how much is spent on their houses, and how much is spent on the colliery houses in which the men live? All these things are taken into account in arriving at the costs other than wages referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), and I think it is right that this Committee should have all these points before them, and should be able to see where money could be saved to the taxpayer under these headings. There are also such things as motor cars for running directors and managers about, and I should like to know if these appear in the returns that have been submitted to the Secretary for Mines. Indeed, there are many points that ought to be brought to the light of day under this heading, so that we may see as far as possible that the money is used in the way that was intended, and is not paid to other people who can well afford to do without it. These are very important questions to the mining community, and I should like to have an answer to them.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I regret that I was not here when the Secretary for Mines made his opening statement and, therefore, I may be repeating questions that have been asked before. It might be useful, however, to remind the right hon. Gentleman that repetition is necessary in order to get an answer from any Government Department. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to Sub-heads A, B and EE. Under "Salaries, Wages and Allowances" there is a reference to the preparation of a revised catalogue of abandoned mines. I think it would be very useful to ascertain from the Secretary for Mines what is the official definition of an abandoned mine. A great deal of expense has been incurred in the Courts of the country in seeking to ascertain what is the correct legal definition, and, from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has now a revised catalogue of abandoned mines, we have a right to assume that that means that at last we have a catalogue that is up to date, and includes every abandoned mine that can possibly be discovered anywhere in the country. I should also like to ask whether the catalogue is available for inspection by Members in the Library of the House, and, if not, whether the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that a copy shall be placed at our disposal?
We have reason to believe that, while the Department has done everything within its power as a Department to discover every abandoned mine, there are still many abandoned mines that have not been scheduled in this catalogue, and, if that be so, even if there were only a few mines in each of the older coalfields that were not so scheduled, it is a matter of the utmost public importance for the safety of the miners that they should be discovered. There is no industrial country in the world which has such a black record with regard to the results of abandoned mines as Great Britain. We are, of course, the oldest mining community in the world, and, therefore, generations passed before the public conscience, and, certainly, before the conscience of this House was aroused to the dangers of abandoned mines. We wish to know whether any mines have been left out that should be included, and whether the Minister will give us his definition of an abandoned mine. Does it mean merely those coal mines out of
which all the workable coal has been worked, and which obviously, therefore, have been abandoned because they are no longer workable; or does it include mines which have been abandoned by the colliery companies, possibly against the best public interests of the country, because they say that the seams are now too thin or too poor or too costly to work?
This House, as representing the interests of this country, has a wider interest than that in the mines. We cannot afford to allow valuable coal resources to be abandoned recklessly because a particular colliery company finds it does not yield them an adequate profit. Again, we want to know whether abandoned mines include such mines as have been abandoned by the company again because they have become waterlogged, and because the company, possibly in such cases through no fault of its own, is no longer able to work the mines at a profit, and does this catalogue reveal in such cases that the mines have become water-logged and been abandoned although there may be valuable coal seams still workable, simply because the colliery companies working adjacent workings have not done their duty in pumping the water out of their mines, and have allowed it to drift and gravitate to the deeper workings of such abandoned mines. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to take any steps to put a stop to that kind of thing, and will he reveal in his catalogue how many mines are now abandoned for such causes? Then does the Department sufficiently realise, and have they sufficient power to overcome the difficulty, that practically up to 20 or 30 years ago there were no proper records kept by the majority of colliery companies, with the result that it requires very great care indeed and very thorough research, and even inspection and boring by the Mines Department, if some abandoned mines are to be adequately recorded in this revised catalogue, and if the safety of the miners is to be adequately safeguarded? I think we are entitled to a very definite assurance from the right hon. Gentleman on this point.
Then I should like to draw attention to Vote E.E. with regard to the employment of firms of accountants and their duties in connection with the coal mining industry subvention. I wish to ask what are the powers of the accountants in
examining the books of the colliery companies, and what test are they instructed to lay down as to whether a colliery company is or is not entitled to this subvention or subsidy. I am sure the Secretary for Mines is perfectly aware that while the estimate of coal royalties is something over £6,000,000 it is really more than that, and it is very important that the accountants should be very well informed on this fact, that during the last 20 years or so, especially the last 10 years, a large number of colliery companies have become the freeholders of the minerals and not merely the leaseholders. Many of them have bought the minerals outright from the original royalty owners. Are the accountants given power to ascertain which collieries—and there are many such in every coalfield in Great Britain—pay no royalties, and having discovered such collieries have they the power to ask the companies how they assess out of their total revenue what would be the equivalent to the royalty per ton? If a colliery company is not very carefully supervised in this particular there is a big temptation to put down in their books, for the purpose of balancing, a very excessive royalty on every ton that is sold, which would of course reduce their profit on the total commercial saleable coal and therefore would easily place them within the subvention, where if they were assessable to royalty on a fair basis their profit would correspondingly go up higher and they would not be able to claim any subvention at all. I am not prepared to trust the coal-owners any further than I can see them.
It is really very necessary that the accountants should not merely take the figures given them by the colliery companies. They ought to have the power to say, "This figure appears to be high. Do you seriously suggest that this is the royalty value of the coal you work?" The accountants ought to be in a position to say, "Before we accept your figures at their face value we are going to ascertain what are the royalties per ton paid by adjoining collieries, and if we discover that their royalties are substantially lower than yours we are going to consider it our duty as accountants in charge of the public purse not to allow a higher royalty value on your output than that of adjoining collieries working the same seam under the same conditions." Many of us are very suspicious that, unless the accountants are very capable and very determined in their investigations, large
sums in this subvention are paid away unnecessarily in this way to colliery companies. I think we are entitled to know, that. I urge that the revised catalogue of abandoned mines that we are asked to vote for here shall not merely be in the pigeon holes of the Mines Department, but that a copy shall be available for inspection in the Library of the House. That is really necessary in the interests of the Government itself, which is so reckless in its expenditure of money in every direction. It is important because the number of abandoned mines is growing rapidly, and we know that a large number have been abandoned since the prosperous period following the War. Some have been abandoned, in our opinion, unnecessarily, and we want to know what is the opinion of the accountants on the financial side in such cases. There are many other mines which have been abandoned during the last 100 years or more in Durham, Northumberland, Lancashire, South Wales and all the older coalfields. The further back you go the more abandoned mines you get—abandoned merely because of the reckless greed of the coal owners of the period.

The CHAIRMAN: It is beyond the power of the accountants to say why the mine is abandoned.

Mr. MARDY JONES: With all due respect to your ruling, I submit that I know a little about mining, and I submit that these salaries, wages and allowances cannot be earned by any officers in the Mines Department unless they ascertain, as far as is humanly possible, every abandoned mine in the country, however far back it goes. The safety of the miners of to-day and to-morrow depends very largely, in these older coalfields, upon getting accurate plans and accurate records of every abandoned mine. We want to get that. We want a proper plan of the working area of every abandoned mine. We want a proper plan of the area of every abandoned mine that has been worked, showing what coal has been left in the workings. That is very necessary. Our coal resources are still the foundation of the future commercial prosperity of this country. Coal is our chief fuel. Although oil is competing with it more and more, it canot replace coal as the basic fuel for world power in this or in any other country. It is vital
in the national interests that we should have a very accurate knowledge of our coal resources.
Unless we get accurate plans of the abandoned mines, where they are, when they were abandoned, why they were abandoned, and what is the condition of the area that has been abandoned it is impossible to know what our coal resources are, and it is impossible to take the necessary safeguards against future dangers. A new mine, which may be run on up-to-date lines, may be suddenly done out by inundations of water from an abandoned mine, and hundreds and, perhaps, thousands of miners may lose their lives because of the niggardly policy of the Mines Department in not making a proper investigation into how many mines are abandoned and their condition. What applies to water-logged mines applies to other mines which are hollowed out but not properly planned, which are full of gas, which are positive gasometers, and are to be found in every old coalfield. These old mines may be broken into any moment by miners working in new mines, the gas may come through the workings and suffocate the miners, or, perhaps, cause an explosion and kill hundreds of men at one stroke. This revised catalogue is much more important than may be supposed.
We regard it as the sheet-anchor for the safety of the mines in the future that this revised catalogue should be provided and that it should be as correct and scientific in its data as is humanly possible. I would not hesitate to spend much more than is shown in this Estimate to get a proper record in that direction. The Secretary for Mines has a big responsibility. If he wants to assure the mining population of this country that, as far as he is concerned and as far as his Department and the Government are concerned, that in the coming crisis in the coal industry they are going to have courage and not be browbeaten by any vested interests, either of royalty owners or of coalowners, he will give a revised catalogue worthy of any up-to-date scientific department.

Mr. LEE: I should like to call attention to item "EE." which refers to accountants appointed by the Government. I would remind the Secretary for Mines that there are accountants who are not paid by the Government, but
appointed by the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation in the various districts. In Command Paper 2550 issued by the Government, which deals with the period ending 30th September last, the Government gave figures which are different from the figures submitted by the accountants of the Mining Association and the accountants of the Miners' Federation. How is it that when we are dealing with the same period the figures are different? I am concerned more with the eastern area than with any other area. For the quarter ending September last, the accountants appointed by the Mining Association and the accountants appointed by the miners agree in their figures. They give the total output of coal as 21,000,000 tons for the quarter, while the Government returns show 20,000,000. There is a difference of 564,737 tons. When you come to the commercially disposed figure you get approximately the same figures. I wonder how the difference of 564,000 tons is arrived at.
In regard to prices, the Government figures give a figure of 15s. 11d. a ton for disposable coal, while the accountants of the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation give 14s. 5d. When you come to the shifts worked by the men, you get exactly the same figures. When you get the same shifts worked by the men and you get a varying amount of tonnage, I should like to know how the figures are arrived at. There is no industry in which more figures are supplied than the mining industry, and there are no figures which are so confusing. When you get different figures from a Government Department from the figures supplied by other accountants, it is enough to make the people outside the industry to feel suspicious, to say nothing about the people inside the industry. This document from the Government Department purports to be based upon the ascertainments of the accountants of the Mining Association and of the Miners' Federation. The document states that the figures are based upon the ascertainments of the joint auditors of the district boards instituted by the National Wages Agreement. If they are based upon those ascertainments, purporting to be dealing with the same collieries for the same period, how is it that they do not arrive at the same figures? I should be glad if the Secretary
for Mines would give some explanation. This is by no means the only quarter in respect of which this statement can be made. Every quarter shows up in the same way. Somehow, they never can make the figures agree.

Mr. JENKINS: I should like to draw attention to the collieries at Skewen, where the men have been idle for 16 months. A representative of the Mines Department has been down to make some inquiries, and the owner told him definitely that they were not going to re-open these mines until they knew what was going to be the result next May. I should like to know from the Secretary for Mines, because he has refused to give information by question, what is the amount of the subsidy that has been contributed to this colliery company. They have definitely kept over 2,000 men out of work. They are keeping the officials working, a few firemen and the managers, but no miners are allowed to work. Nevertheless, the Government are contributing, according to the information we have received, some of the subsidy money for these employers who are keeping collieries idle in that area. Why should that be done? It means that the Mines Department are not carrying out what was submitted to this House when they asked for a subsidy for the mining industry. Why should these men be kept idle while the Government continues a contribution to these owners? It is unfair and unreasonable.
Another question I wish to ask is, what method has the right hon. Gentleman adopted, in connection with the revised catalogue, in order to ascertain the checking of the surveys made at the various collieries? There may be some excuse with regard to mines that have been abandoned 60 or 80 years, but there is no excuse if you have no method of checking even the surveys that are made at the collieries now. Someone should be employed by the Mines Department to make an occasional check. The Department inspectors already have sufficient work to do, and are not able to make an investigation of all the mines, and to check all the plans. I would like to know what method the Department has for getting the information and checking the plans in the various coal mines.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I also want to put a few questions. The Secretary for Mines will know the trying time through which the miners at Blaenavon have been passing. Mines have been closed down from three months to six months at a time. I believe that recently they started one or two out of the five mines. How does the subvention affect the mines that are idle? Whether the subject is within the category of this Vote I cannot say. The last speaker asked about the Skewen mines. I want some information about the mines in my constituency. I know the effect of the subvention on the steel trade in my constituency.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must know that that is a no-ball.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I bow to the decision of the umpire. Perhaps the Minister will give me some information about the abandoned mines. I want to know whether they are abandoned altogether. I am told that they are practically derelict and on the edge of the mining area in my constituency. I cannot say that it would be encouraging for the men to know whether or not they have to leave the district, but it would be helpful for us to know whether there is any prospect of work for these men in the future. If that information were given to me, I should be able to explain things to those concerned the next time I go to my constituency.

Colonel LANE FOX: A great many questions have been raised, and I will do my best to answer them. The questions mostly group themselves around two subjects. I will deal, first, with that relating to the catalogue of abandoned mines. There is one misapprehension on this subject. It is really unnecessary for the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) to shake his fist in my face, because I am doing the very thing that he apparently has never yet suggested to the House, though he now speaks of it as though he were the father of it. I am glad to have his approval, for I am certain that the work is well worth doing. Since the year 1872 there is no difficulty about a catalogue, because by Statute, in the case of all mines abandoned, plans have to be deposited with the Mines Department. I am trying to get hold of the old plans, going back as far as possible.
Wherever there is the possibility of an old and abandoned working, I am trying to secure the plan or to get a copy of it, and so to have a complete catalogue to which we can refer. Several hon. Members have asked whether this catalogue will be made accessible to all. Of course, that is the object of making it; we want to make it as accessible as possible. We would welcome suggestions as to the best method of preparing the plans. When an hon. Member refers to it as a little booklet that could be carried round in the pocket and handed by him to his friends, it is plain that he hardly realises what it means.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I am sure that I did not use any such word as "booklet." If carried out properly the scheme will mean many volumes, and probably the largest series in this House.

9.0 P.M.

Colonel LANE FOX: The general view seemed to be that it might be a catalogue somewhat on the lines of a catalogue of books. Of course, it will be a very large thing indeed. There are many plans to be searched for, and when found they have to be examined. In some cases plans will be useless, and in other cases they will be inaccurate. All these considerations involve a great deal of work, and that is the chief justification for the Estimate now before the Committee.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: Suppose that no plans are available, and yet you know that there have been old workings in an area. What steps, do you propose to take? Will you take evidence from old people in the district, as has been suggested?

Colonel LANE FOX: When there are no plans available you cannot put them into the catalogue, but any information that can be obtained will be put into the catalogue. Where there are no plans and there is reason to suspect old workings, there are certain, legal Regulations under the Statute by which certain borings have to be made in advance, and so on—it is quite possible that these Regulations may want alteration.
I have been asked a question about mines abandoned and as to the subvention. An hon. Member inquired whether the subvention is paid in the case of pits that are not working. There seems
to be considerable misapprehension in the minds of a great many Members as to the working of the subvention. The question has been asked whether we have a return of directors' fees and royalties and so on. Those matters do not come in. They are matters under the ordinary ascertainment, which is still going on. The subvention is intended to bridge the gap between the scale of wages under the 1924 Agreement and the scale of wages which the owners proposed. You get two scales of wages and the subvention is to bridge the gap, to raise the owners' scale to the level of the men's scale. Our accountants have nothing whatever to do with royalties. The work of checking the colliery returns is, I believe, entirely, or very largely done by those in whom the men can trust, and it is important that these matters should be correctly ascertained. An hon. Member has asked that the investigations should be as complete as possible. Of course they are. We take every step to secure that end, and we employ men in whom the miners can have every confidence.

Mr. MARDY JONES: What instructions are given to the accountants?

Colonel LANE FOX: I can only tell the hon. Member that the accountants have instructions to check the returns which are being made by the collieries for the purposes of the subvention, and that the ordinary process of ascertainment is carried on in the same way as usual. In connection with the subvention, what is required to check the number of men for whom the subvention is claimed, and the difference between the two scales That involves a large amount of work. The number of undertakings is something like 1,500 or more, and there is a far larger number of individual pits. Therefore, the number of accounts to be checked is very large, and obviously a considerable expense is involved. Allusion has been made to an unguarded remark which I made, saying that we reckoned on saving a little more than we had spent and it has been suggested that in that remark I conveyed an imputation of dishonesty against the coalowners. I would be extremely sorry to think that I had conveyed any impression of that kind at all. What I meant was that in a matter of this kind where claims are made, it is
very often a matter of considerable difficulty to assess those claims because they depend on a variety of intricate points, and the fact that we wish to check those claims does not in the least involve an imputation of dishonesty on anybody because there may be a clear and honest difference of opinion in a matter of the kind. It is, however, desirable to have the accurate figures as far as possible, and that, I think, is the justification for the Estimate. I believe it will be found that it will result in a saving. I am quite certain that hon. Members opposite would not wish us to accept the accounts of the colliery companies without any check or audit at all, and therefore I think this expenditure is quite justified.
The hope has also been expressed that we should allow the inspectors to have full knowledge of all the information which is collected about mines. That is, in fact, a part of the scheme—that in every district the inspectors should have full access to any information, and should do their best to give warning of any risks or dangers. A question was asked by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and others as to collieries which are making a profit, and are receiving the subvention. That is a matter which has been discussed in this House, and it would seem from the questions that the object of the subvention is to some extent misunderstood. The idea was to leave the collieries in their various relations with each other. Some pits were doing well and some badly. If you had given a subsidy only to those which were doing badly, and which one might presume to be the less efficient and less well-managed — [HON. MEMBERS: "Not necessarily!"]—at any rate, the less successful pits—and if you thereby penalised the more successful pits, obviously, it would be very unfair. You would be making the competition of the unsuccessful against the successful more acute for the latter, and taking away from the latter an advantage to which thye are entitled. That would be unfair to the well-managed and successful undertakings.

Mr. TINKER: I am not disputing the terms of the subvention. Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us the collieries which have been given this
additional money and which were making profit?

Colonel LANE FOX: I cannot give the hon. Member at the moment the individual figures.

Mr. TINKER: I think it necessary that we should have them.

Colonel LANE FOX: Before the period ends, no doubt we shall have them. At the moment there are undoubtedly some pits which are making a profit, and getting the subvention, but I do not see how it can be avoided.

Mr. TINKER: I want to know the pits which are getting it, and are making an actual profit.

Colonel LANE FOX: I have not got that information at the moment.

Mr. GREENALL: Will the Secretary for Mines try to get the information and give it to Parliament as soon as possible?

Colonel LANE FOX: It would certainly be very important before the subvention period ends that we should be able to ascertain those facts, but at the present moment they are not available. The Department has been very busy, and there has been a vast amount of work to do in the matter of checking the returns.

Mr. TINKER: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman any cases of districts where they have been making more than 15d. per ton?

Colonel LANE FOX: I cannot at this moment, as I say, give details about the various districts. The hon. Member knows the process which is being carried on. I have not the figures actually by me as to how the various districts are working.

Mr. GREENALL: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman get the information and find out what collieries are getting 1s. 3d. a ton, and what collieries are getting over or under that figure?

Colonel LANE FOX: That is really a matter of accountancy and checking the returns.

Mr. GREENALL: Has the Department any system of getting the information?

Colonel LANE FOX: I have tried to explain that for the moment the subvention is paid to make up the difference between the two scales of wages according to the number of men employed. It is only later on when we come to consider the positions of the various undertakings that further information will be wanted. The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) asked a question as to how far back the information in regard to abandoned mine workings would go, and, as I have said, we shall go back as far as we can in getting that information. He also asked who was responsible for the fencing of shafts. I believe that the colliery is responsible in the first instance for fencing off the shafts. There is also a responsibility on the owner of the surface, but I do not think that point has anything to do with this Estimate. Those are the only questions I have down which have any reference to this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. BARKER: I asked the right hon. Gentleman definitely with reference to three pits in Abertillery, the Tillery, the Gray, and the Vivian Collieries. These collieries have been closed about two years. Has the subsidy been paid to these collieries, are they on the list of the abandoned collieries, and has the right hon. Gentleman made any efforts to get them re-opened?

Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Member did ask those questions, and I was coming to them. What happens about the subvention and the pits which are not working is that, as far as the safety men are employed, their wages are raised from the lower to the higher scale, exactly in the same way as the wages of all other men in the collieries, and I do not think it is in the interests of the hon. Members opposite to suggest that that ought not to be the case, because we want to keep as many pits as possible ready to be opened when they can be opened, and if you pay no subvention in the case of these safety men so that the pits can be kept in a workable condition, you are making it much more likely that they will be permanently closed down.

Mr. JENKINS: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by wages being raised from one scale to another?

Colonel LANE FOX: I mean that the subvention is used to raise the wages
from the scale which the masters said was all they could pay to the scale of the 1924 agreement. That was the object of the subsidy.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: The right hon. Gentleman said they were paying the subvention for the purpose of the owners keeping the pits ready for when the slump passes away, but is he not aware that there are collieries that the owners have arranged to start again, and that have not been kept open?

Colonel LANE FOX: Of course, you cannot make men keep pits open if they cannot be made to pay, but where they keep a number of safety men in the pit, you can secure that those men shall have their wages made up from the lower scale of the masters to the higher scale of the men. In regard to the abandoned pits, if those pits are permanently abandoned, their plans would have to be deposited in the Mines Department, and, therefore, they would not come into the question at all. If they are not permanently abandoned, they would be in charge of safety men, and pumping would be going on.

Mr. BARKER: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any effort to get these pits re-started—I mean the pits for which he is paying a portion of the subsidy?

Colonel LANE FOX: We always make efforts to get pits re-started, but that does not come into this Supplementary Estimate. We shall always make efforts and encourage pits to start again, but when it is stated by the owners that they cannot make them pay and that they are making a dead loss, it is not, of course, possible to insist on them being worked. I can assure hon. Members that there will never be a case of a pit stopping in which my Department will not do all that it can to secure a resumption of work. I think I have now answered most of the questions put to me.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that in Committee a Member is not confined to one speech, and, therefore, he can rise again if the explanation of the Minister is not satisfactory.

Colonel LANE FOX: There was a complaint made by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Mr. Lee), who asked
about a discrepancy in some figures. It is very difficult to throw figures about in this House, but if he will bring me the figures he has, I shall be glad to go into them. Very often when I have had discrepancies brought to my notice and have had them examined, it has been found that it was because like was not being compared with like.

Mr. LEE: My point was that they were dealing with the same period.

Colonel LANE FOX: I understood that, and if the hon. Member will let me have the figures, we can go into them together.

Mr. WHITELEY: We have had some information from the right hon. Gentleman, but certainly he has not answered the important questions put to him. When the Government is asked to spend £12,500 on firms of accountants, at least this Committee ought to be in a position to secure information that has been obtained by those firms. We are anxious to know how much subvention is being paid to collieries that are partially idle—collieries where you have two or three seams idle and one seam working—and the seams that are idle are being kept in condition by the officials of the colliery, not by the workmen. The second point we want to know is how much subvention is being paid, as ascertained by these firms of accountants, to those collieries where there are actually no workmen employed at all, but simply the officials. We want to know whether the subvention is being paid on the wage lists of the officials as well as on the wage lists of the workmen.
The right hon. Gentleman did tell us that this subvention was an amount which was being paid between the 1924 wage agreement and the offer of the owners last year, and that the subvention was the difference between these two points. It is being said that the subvention is to assist wages, and it may be that it is helping wages considerably at some of the more uneconomical pits, but considering the pits that are paying large profits it appears that this subvention is being used to enhance profits. What we say is that these accountants ought to be revealing the facts first of all to the Secretary for Mines, and the Secretary for Mines to this House, so that we could tell the taxpayers of this country exactly how their money is being paid to the
various collieries of this country. Those are the important questions that we want answered,, and we have not had a shred of information on these important matters from the Secretary for Mines.
The right hon. Gentleman said that this £12,500 was justified because these things needed checking. Of couse, they need checking. Then he went on to tell us that they had selected practically the same firms of accountants to do this work as were doing it on behalf of the Mining Associations in the various areas. If that is so, then that means that this £12,500 is less justified than we thought at first. If you had the same firms of accountants doing this particular kind of work who are already doing the same kind of work in the county districts for the mine-owners, then it will need very little checking. When you come to consider that, in addition to this £12,500, you have £2,102 paid for additional staffing in the Mines Department for doing similar work, we are entitled in the House of Commons to know just where the taxpayers' money is going. I am very sorry that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman has been so meagre as to leave us absolutely in a fog in regard to this item. I hope he is going to give us information on these fundamental points, which it is essential that the people of this country should know something about, when they are paying the subvention.

Mr. HARDIE: The question of efficiency and inefficiency is one that requires some explanation. The words "efficiency" or "inefficiency" are flung about on this question without very much relation to facts. When these words are used we want to know what is meant. To begin with, you can sink a shaft into a coalfield that is practically free from natural faults. That is nature's efficiency. When you sink another shaft in another district you may get coal troubled with faults.

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the hon. Member is not keeping to the subject of accountancy.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to connect this up with the statements, made in my hearing and yours, in the last half-hour. The question was put to the Secretary for Mines as to what was the basis of the payment of the subvention. He was
asked whether he could give the names of collieries that were paying a profit apart from the subsidy. The Secretary for Mines in his reply referred to inefficient collieries and efficient collieries, and what I am trying to do is to link up logically the two statements that have been given, in order to get some relation as to what is the basis upon which he says that a colliery is efficient or inefficient.

The CHAIRMAN: This is a question of accountants and their returns. Accountants cannot deal with the efficiency or the inefficiency of the working of a mine, and they cannot give such a report in their returns.

Mr. HARDIE: In these accounts we have got a sum mentioned in connection with the accountancy in relation to the subsidy. That is clear. I think that in paying subsidy we have got to take into consideration the efficiency and the inefficiency of the mines. The Secretary for Mines just a few minutes ago pointed out how unfair it would be not to pay the subsidy, because it would mean inefficiency in other mines that were not so well managed. Does he take into consideration the natural inefficiency caused by the matters I have mentioned, in relation to the one or the other, that gives the natural condition? Unless these matters are taken into consideration, it is most unfair to say that where there are natural faults that that necessarily becomes an inefficient mine.
I would like to have a clear and definite answer that there is a basis in the Mines Department as to relating the payment of subsidies as between what they consider an inefficient mine and what is an efficient mine, and, where they take nature's conditions, to add to its efficiency, or subtract if it is inefficient. I was glad to hear the Secretary for Mines, after the Reading and Scotswood disasters, say that some steps are being taken to bring up to date the list of abandoned mines. The only list we have in this House is dated 1894, and it is a very meagre business. I hope this list of abandoned mines that they are going to work out will not be made out in the same slip-shod way as they did in building up the list of 1894. Have the Government given the Secretary for Mines powers to demand access, and to demand
every landowner who claims to have coal to produce everything in relation to what is under his ground, and information as to what is the depth and, where you go beyond the days of plans, to have the books of all manor owners, landowners, looked into as far as you can, to see the payments for royalties; because where you have no plans, you have still got this method of looking at the payment in the books? We have still got some Domesday books, and you can by this means get somewhere about where these mines were working.
I want to come to the question of abandoned mines. Thousands of miners have been drowned by mistakes and lack of information on this matter. In relation to future working, I want to know whether the Department for Mines has considered this question. Instead of working from a rise downwards, and always having the mine above you being flooded with water, and always having danger to the men in the lower part of it, are you asking to-day, what science tells you you should have, namely, that your shaft should be sunk down to the deepest part, always work up to the highest part so that the water will always be in the lowest part? That will always eliminate the danger to the men. Has the Secretary for Mines got powers from the Government to tell all these landowners that for the safety of the men and the better scientific working of the pit, the landowners are not to be regarded as the determining factor as to where a mine is to be sunk? I want to know if we are going to learn at all from the tragedies of the past so as to have some guidance for the future.
I come to my last point. We have had in this House, in reply to questions in relation to water-logged mines, the statement that under certain pressures it is quite safe for men to continue work. I know of a Scottish mine—I will not give the name—where the men refused to go down the mine because of the danger of water, and it was given out to these men by the managers that they had ascertained that the pressure of water on the other side was such that there was absolutely no danger. However, what I want to know from the Mines Department is whether they are going to disregard that sort of safety so far as the men are concerned, because underground, especially in the area where this mine is
situated—where mining has been going on—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Vote concerns the question of abandoned mines.

Mr. HARDIE: I am speaking now of the abandoned mines. I want to know whether the Mines Department are going to get away from the idea that when there is the pressure at one moment, it is going to stay at that. They have no guarantee. The water pressure may be changed in a quarter of an hour, in five minutes, or even one minute, and I want to ask the Secretary for Mines whether his Department have taken any steps, after the tragedies we have experienced recently, to prevent these things continuing.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I appreciate the fact that the Secretary for Mines in his reply has tried to answer most of our points, but I want to state that I personally, as a miners' Member in this House, as representing a large body of miners in my own constituency, and I think, speaking for the miners of the country, am very dissatisfied with the position, as disclosed by the last statement of the Secretary for Mines, that the instructions to the accountants, in checking what subvention shall or shall not be given to colliery companies, are similar to the instructions which the same body of accountants, who were employed in another capacity by the Mining Association in ascertaining wages for wage agreements in every coalfield of the country. In most cases they are the same persons. They are quite competent persons. We have no quarrel with that, but their instructions, apparently, did not go beyond what they got when employed to ascertain the capacity of the colliery companies to pay wages. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the method they adopt in checking the books of the companies are similar to the method adopted for the wage ascertainment. If that be so, I say it is insufficient for the purpose, because the Miners' Federation for many years have never been satisfied, even on joint auditing, that the accountants are in a position to give a true audit of the undertakings, and for the very simple reason that the coalowners of Great Britain have never yet in any wage agreement with the miners agreed to give
the joint auditors complete power to inspect every book dealing with every item of cost in the colliery. Until the accountants are given that power, they cannot make a truthful audit of the capacity of the company to pay any wage increase or not.
The Government do, or should, represent in this House the interests of the taxpayers of the country, and they have not protected the interests of the taxpayers in the instructions they have given the accountants in checking the books of the colliery companies in this matter, because the accountants have not complete power to inspect the books to ascertain what is really the position of the colliery companies. Until they are able to do so, I am afraid there will be cases—the more you go into it, the more they will be disclosed—that companies do get the subsidy when they are really not entitled to it. Therefore, we protest against this slipshod method, this squandering of the public money. Further, I should like to point out that the Secretary for Mines has made no reply to my suggestion that he should place upon the Table of this House a copy of the instructions given to the accountants, and I still ask that it should be placed upon the Table. Then he has not answered my point, which, with all due respect, I consider a very important one, namely, that we have yet had no assurance that the accountants have power to demand of those colliery companies who are the owners of the minerals they work, and therefore pay no royalty to any particular landlord, or class of landlord, that they put in their cost of working a fair charge, the equivalent of the royalty paid for the coal worked where they pay royalties to landlords, and they are open to the temptation—and, knowing them as I do, I have no hesitation in saying I honestly believe that many of them fall to the temptation—of charging an excessive royalty on their working costs, because that increases their chance of a claim on the subsidy fund. Until we get a definite assurance from the department that the accountants have power to do that, I shall continue to be dissatisfied.
With regard to the disclosure of the Secretary for Mines that the revised catalogue is to refer to abandoned mines prior to the Mines' Act of 1872, the reason
given for that, apparently, is that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied, and his Department, apparently, is satisfied, that because an Act was passed in 1872 making it compulsory upon coalowners to produce plans of their collieries, that has been automatically and faithfully done by the colliery companies from 1872 up to date. If that is the opinion of the Secretary for Mines, he is welcome to it; it is not my opinion. I am absolutely certain that many colliery companies deliberately evaded, as far as they could, the Mines' Act of 1872, and for years afterwards. It was only when the inspectorate was enlarged, and competent and trustworthy men were put in the position to enforce these powers, that many of the colliery companies did give truthful plans of their workings. In the first year there was a very small inspectorate appointed for this purpose, and it is only within the last 10 or 15 years, since the Miners Federation has had some influence over Governments and created a public conscience in this matter, that the inspectorate has been large enough to see that this Act is being carried out in practice.
Therefore I suggest that there are still a good number of abandoned mines in the country which were first opened after the year 1872 of which there is no record in the past Schedule of 1894, nor, so far as we know, in any schedule that has latterly been composed. I do not know the reason for making 1872 the date. The Secretary has not made it clear that he realises the great national importance of getting a revised catalogue brought up-to-date so that, as far as humanly possible, every abandoned mine, whatever the cause of its abandonment, may be included. It appears that the money we are asked for for this purpose is included in the sum of £4,225 that we have under Sub-head A. There is no indication here in the report that as to what part of that money is to be devoted to the expenses of the preparation of the revised catalogue of abandoned mines. I wish to know how much of the sum is allocated for that specific purpose; how much of it will be devoted?

Colonel LANE FOX: £1,422.

Mr. JONES: Do I understand that the sum so asked in this total for the purpose of the expenses of the preparation of a revised catalogue of abandoned mines amount to £1,400?

Colonel LANE FOX: indicated assent.

Mr. JONES: If that is so, all I have to say is that it is a mere bagatelle of the sum which ought to be voted annually by any Government for the specific purpose, because if you are going seriously to revise such a catalogue and include the whole there are thousands of abandoned mines, or mines reputed to be abandoned, in the country, many of which are within the local knowledge of the older inhabitants. If this is to be done—and the right hon. Gentleman appears to hope that it will be done—I would respectfully submit to him that he is not taking up his task seriously at all, because the sum of £1,400 is just like the monthly wages of an office boy compared with what is involved in the great commercial undertaking in which the office boy is employed.
Is the Secretary for Mines aware that during the Tudor dynasty, and throughout the reigns of the Tudor monarchs, various Acts of Parliament were passed by this House and another place, under which the inhabitants of London were prohibited from burning coal in any hearth? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that because of these various Acts which, were very drastically carried out by the various Tudor monarchs, that many mines were abandoned because of the serious problems of being unable to use the coal from Newcastle, South Wales, and so on? Is he further aware that many mines in Durham, Northumberland and other districts were abandoned because of the legislation of the Tudor dynasty? Is he aware that a further mandate issued by the Boy King Edward VI on 5th May,1551, affected 16 English and six Welsh counties?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is hardly entitled to deal with mines in former days. He had better perhaps stick to the mines in subsequent times.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Are not the pits that were in existence during the Tudor dynasty to be included in the catalogue that is to be prepared?

Mr. JONES: I was putting to the Secretary for Mines, Captain FitzRoy, that the revised catalogue should contain,
so far as his Department could ascertain, the abandoned mines known, or reputed to be abandoned, in each and every coal producing district in Great Britain. Therefore, my illustration, I suggest, is to the point, for it is vastly important that we should ascertain the particulars of every possible abandoned mine. I was simply illustrating my point by a reference to the Tudor period because it may have gone out of the knowledge of hon. Members, and for this reason, too, that during that period coal was being burnt increasingly in London. During the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, because the Royal Palace of Westminster was so near then to the growing town of Westminster, and the smoke emitted in the burning of this coal became a nuisance to the Royal household, the monarchs of the time enacted that they should no longer suffer this nuisance.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will leave his history, and come more to the point.

Mr. JONES: I would suggest the importance of these historical facts for the simple reason that although they may not be in the minds of many hon. Members of this House, the fact is well known through the bitter experience of some of us that there are abandoned mines in various of these districts adjacent to the mines which are working. Countless thousands of our miners have been sent to an untimely doom because them has been no accurate record of these abandoned mines. I do not raise this as a trivial point to waste the time of the Committee. I raise it as a serious point, and demand that the Mines Department shall give serious attention to the fact, and that we should know the abandoned mines in every one of the coalfields which are adjacent to new mines and which are a danger to the mining population in these developing areas. So I do submit this revised catalogue, if it is to be a proper catalogue, should include every possible abandoned mine that can be traced.
Therefore, we have the era of these centuries when the coal industry was being first developed. It is common knowledge, or it ought to be common knowledge, that in the older districts of Durham, Northumberland, South Wales, Lancashire and other parts of England coal mines have been developed in some
parts in considerable measure over the past centuries. I would submit that their were mines abandoned in Northumberland and Durham because the seaborne coal that was brought from Newcastle and other ports on the north-east coast was no longer allowed to be burnt in London, or distributed for the benefit of the London consumers of coal. That is why I draw the attention to the matter. It is on the records of the House. There are numerous Acts of Parliament which have been passed from time to time from the Tudor dynasty onwards which, until the comparatively last few years, prohibited the use of coal in London. That did result definitely in the abandonment of mines which were no longer required because of the reduced amount of coal owing to the restricted legislation.
I come now to the period of the Industrial Revolution. During this period, from the latter part of the 18th century to practically the passing of the Act of 1872, the coalfields in Great Britain were very quickly developed and very widely developed—in England, South Wales; and also in Scotland.

Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in going into this historical survey?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was waiting to hear what the hon. Member had to say. As I have told him, this historical retrospect as to the cause of the closing of the mines has nothing to do with this Vote.

Mr. JONES: In my humble grasp of the English language, I read this item in the Vote as expenditure on the preparation of a revised catalogue of abandoned mines.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am perfectly aware of what is in the Vote, but the reason for the closing of the mines has nothing to do with this Vote. If the hon. Member confines himself to the number of mines closed, that will be quite sufficient for the argument.

Mr. JONES: I humbly submit that it is not sufficient for my argument, because the coalowners of Great Britain are indicted in this Vote, absolutely indicted. Countless thousands of our men have gone to an early doom because there has been no proper catalogue for many
years, and because the old catalogue, which was prepared in 1894, is now admitted to be very meagre. Therefore, we have a right to ask that this money should be spent, even more money, in order to see that mines not recorded in the old catalogue shall be included in the new; and how are those mines to be included unless the Mines Department make a thorough investigation into where these abandoned mines are? In many cases no plans of these mines were ever prepared, and the only knowledge we have of these mines, abandoned 50 or 60 years ago, in many old coalfields is the knowledge of the miners who worked in them, or of their children who acquired their knowledge from conversation with their parents.
10.0 P.M.
I submit, therefore, that the question of this catalogue is a very wide one and that wide suggestions may be made to the Mines Department. I hope the Secretary for Mines will not hesitate to go to the Cabinet, and that when he comes before us next year it will not be for a mere bagatelle of £1,400. I hope a very much bigger sum will be put down for the purpose, because unless he is prepared to spend tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, upon this task he had better not begin it at all, for he will be throwing away public money. It would be a sheer waste of public money to tamper with this question; and to do it thoroughly the Secretary will have to go back to the periods of which I have been talking, to appoint a staff of skilled mining engineers and supply them with the necessary equipment, supply them with skilled draughtsmen to prepare the plans necessary, and make actual experiments in boring in many districts. [Laughter.] I can assure hon. Members opposite there will be more than one bore on this subject to-night. If I have bored a hole into the conscience, if there be one, of the Government as to the enormity of past neglect by mineowners and Governments, I shall have done my duty by my constituents.
The right hon. Gentleman and his Department have got to realise, efficient as I know the officials of the Department to be, that we shall expect them to get very busy about this business. I hope, too, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that the money saved
by the cuts he is going to make on the Army, the Navy and the Air Force shall be devoted to this revised catalogue, because it will require all his savings if it is to be brought up to date and to be of value. I ask the Secretary for Mines two specific questions. The first is, What powers has he given to his accountants, beyond the powers possessed by the accountants of the Miners' Federation, in the matter of wages ascertainment? Will he place on the Table of this House a copy of the instructions he has given to his accountants? Further, will he tell the House here and now if he has the knowledge, and, if not, will he get the knowledge as quickly as possible, whether the accountants have power to ask colliery companies who own the minerals of the collieries they are working, and therefore do not pay royalties, whether they put into their items of cost a fair sum as the royalty value? If the accountants believe when they scan the item for royalties that it appears to be excessive, have they power to compare the sum which the company have allotted as the equivalent of royalties with the royalties of adjoining collieries working the same seams under similar conditions? This is important, because we have reason to believe that some of the colliery companies would not hesitate to trade upon the accountants if the accountants have not the power and do not exercise it.

Mr. BATEY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
No vote before the Committee is so important as this. I was unable to be present to hear the major part of the reply of the Secretary for Mines. I am sorry, it was my misfortune, because I am certain that I would be ever so much better if I had heard that reply.

Mr. MAXTON: He told us nothing.

Mr. BATEY: I cannot accept the statement of my colleague. I am certain I would have been ever so much better if I had heard the reply. When I did come back I asked my colleague. "What has the Secretary for Mines told you?" I had put a number of important questions to him, and I wanted an answer, though I was not able to stay to hear the answer. Seeing the Secretary for Mines did not answer the questions satisfactorily, I am moving this reduction. I do not want to take up much time of the Committee,
but let me put again one or two questions which I would like him to answer.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Will you stop to listen to the answer?

Mr. BATEY: I am certain that the hon. Member opposite would not have said that if he had known that I have sat in this House from four o'clock this afternoon, and had nothing to eat until nine o'clock.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must promise that he will not ask the same questions again.

Mr. BATEY: Oh no, I do not intend to do that. The most important question I want to put is this. I was under the impression, on reading this Estimate and the information given in the Vote, that this £12,500 for "firms of accountants" meant that two or three firms had been engaged by the Mines Department. Since then I have gleaned this fact, that there are no firms of accountants engaged at the Mines Department, and what this Vote means is that the right hon. Gentleman has simply said to accountants in the various districts who are acting with the Miners' Associations, "Send us in your Returns"; and for that we are paying this sum of £12,500. I think that is a correct interpretation of what the Mines Department has been doing, and it is altogether different to the impression I got when I read the explanation for this Vote.
If that is so, then £12,500 is far too much money to be paid to accountants for simply sending in what they have already got out for the miners' associations, and have been paid for. The Secretary for Mines has already said that these accountants have saved the Department far more than £12,500, and that rather suggests that they were preventing the coalowners from robbing the Mines Department. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how much more he believes the coalowners would have got out of the Department if these firms of accountants had not been engaged.
Then I want him to tell us something more about this revised catalogue of abandoned mines. If there had been nothing else but this question of abandoned mines to deal with, the Vote would have merited a discussion in this Committee not only for one night but for two
or three nights. My hon. Friend the Member for Glamorgan (Mr. Hardy Jones) gave a rather wrong impression when speaking on this point, and I am sure he would desire me to correct it. He said that the expenditure in connection with this revised catalogue was £1,323. That is only part of the expenditure.

Mr. MARDY JONES: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for another hon. Member to correct a statement made by another hon. Member which is not incorrect?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not a judge as to the correctness of statements.

Mr. BATEY: Whilst it is true that £1,323 has been spent on this revised catalogue, under Sub-bead "A," there is another item under Sub-head "B"—"Travelling and incidental expenses of staff engaged on investigations in connection with coal-mining industry subvention and upon the prepartion of the revised Catalogue of Abandoned Mines." That is the item under Sub-head "B," and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how much is spent under that head. There is a total amount of £900 for travelling and incidental expenses in connection with the subvention and also in connection with the revised calatogue. Will the right hon. Gentleman divide that £900 and say how much is due to travelling and incidental expenses in connection with the subvention and how much is due to the travelling and incidental expenses in connection with this revised catalogue of abandoned mines.
The question of these abandoned mines is one of the most important things we have to consider. If this catalogue had been revised long years ago many men who are now in heaven would be alive to-day. We regret that this revision did not take place years ago. I am sure I do not need to urge the importance of this proposal on the Secretary for Mines, for I believe he realises in his own heart how important it is, and I am not going to labour the point. What I want to know is this; what is he going to do with the revised catalogue? We have spent a good deal of money on this revision, and when the catalogue has been brought up to date we should very much like to know
what he proposes to do with it. It may be that it is revised already, and in that case perhaps he will say how far the we has proceeded and whether there will be any more expenditure in connection with it.
We might have been told how many abandoned mines have been added to the catalogue and where they are. All the Members representing Durham are very anxious to know how many Durham abandoned mines have been added to the catalogue. When the catalogue is issued is it going to be put in the safe of the Mines Department or will a copy of it be put in the various districts so that the mine managers and the workers will be able to see it? I do not want to repeat the questions which I put earlier in the evening, but I understand that the Secretary for Mines never answered my previous questions, and I hope he will answer them now. This is a most important Supplementary Estimate, and we are taking advantage of it to-night to impress upon the Secretary for Mines the importance of this question.

Colonel LANE FOX: I have been asked whether I would agree to publish the instructions given to the accountants who are auditing the subvention returns, and my answer to that question is in the affirmative, and I shall be glad to publish the instructions. I have also been asked whether royalties were included in the operations of the accountants it calculating costs other than wages. As the hon. Member knows all questions of royalties always come into questions of costs other than wages. For my reply to the other questions put to me by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) I must refer him to the OFFICIAL REPORT, and there he will find those questions have been answered. With regard to the question put to me by the same hon. Member about the £12,500 that money is for the audit in connection with the coal-mining industry subvention, and that is a totally different matter to the audit for the ascertainment of wages.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I want to say, first of all, how grateful I am to the Secretary for Mines for having so readily agreed to publish the instructions given by him to the accountants with regard to checking the books of the colliery companies who claim the subvention.
That is satisfactory, as far as it goes, and we accept it. I do not, however, quite understand his further assurance that on the question of royalties he gave a satisfactory answer. I understood him to say that the accountants are instructed to take note of the royalties paid by the collieries, as they do in the case of the instructions of the Miners' Federation when they carry out the audit for the purposes of wage ascertainment. That, too, I accept as far as it goes, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that what I asked goes further than the powers given to the joint auditors in the wage ascertainments as between the coal-owners and the Miners' Federation. The joint auditors have not the power, and do not seek, to get the information as to what are the royalties actually allotted for the coal produced in collieries where the minerals gotten are owned by the companies who work the mines. The Miners' Federation, for many years past, has demanded that the joint auditors should have that power, and the coalowners have always refused it.
My point was that, while the Miners' Federation may be charged with being a partisan body, in seeking to protect the interests of just one section of the community, when they sought to protect the wage interests of the miners, that charge cannot be laid against the Government. The Government on behalf of the taxpayers of this country, ought to exercise the power and the right which they have, to give the accountants the power to examine all the books of all the colliery companies who ask for the subvention, and the right to inspect every item of cost in those books. I say that, on the disclosure of the Secretary for Mines himself, the accountants have not that power and do not exercise it, and, so far as they have not that power, this Government is neglecting its duty to the taxpayers of the country, and is leaving the coalowners open to the temptation, of which many of them gladly avail themselves, to take advantage of any loophole there may be in this financial arrangement. I know them to my bitter cost. Coalownere are capable of doing that in every coalfield in this country. They are capable of robbing the miner of his hard-earned wages. I desire to press my point once more on the Secretary for Mines, and, unless he can give me the necessary assurance, I shall feel
it my duty to go into the Division Lobby against this Vote.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not grasped the importance of the point. May I, therefore, illustrate it in another way? The coalowner's function is one thing, and the royalty owner's function is another. The royalty owner exacts a payment for every ton of mineral worked upon or underneath the land. In coal mining the royalty charge is a serious burden on the industry, not confined to the amount of the money recorded in the monthly returns of the Mines Department, which give something over £6,000,000 a year for royalty charges. The burden on the industry is much more. It is several times more than the money cost, owing to the hindrance which it places in the way of efficient working of the mines. A large number of the coalowners in every coalfield in Great Britain have for years past had a tendency more and more, not only to put their capital into the sinking and development of the mines to get coal to the surface, but they have discovered that it even pays them to buy out the royalty owners, and many colliery companies have acquired, and the tendency is for them to acquire more and more, the royalty rights or the freehold of the mineral takings.
These colliery companies collectively produce many millions of tons of coal out of the total of the year. At least 20 per cent. of the colliery companies own the minerals as well as the machinery of the mine, and they have to put in their books an estimate of the royalty which on its market value would be paid for the coal gotten per ton were they paying it to the landlords who originally owned the minerals. I am entitled to ask, not only on behalf of the miners but on behalf of the taxpayers, whether the colliery companies who own the minerals, and therefore do not pay any royalty to anyone else, put into their item of costs a fair valuation of the market value of the coal they produce. And the accountants, on the disclosure of the Secretary for Mines, have no power to test that. There is no means at their disposal at present to check the figures, and unless the figure appears on the face of it to be pence in the ton higher than the royalties in the neighbourhood, they cannot even ask a question as to whether this is a fair estimate of the royalty value of the coal.
I want to know why it is that the Government have not given power to the accountants, not merely to take down the figures the coalowners choose to put in as an item of cost. They ought to have the power to compare the royalties with those actually paid by adjoining collieries working the same seams under identical conditions of working costs, miners' customs, hours of work, rates of wages, minimum standard and countless other items which enter into wage agreements. It is only fair to the memory of Karl Marx to say that he went into the archives of the British Museum and discovered that there were such cases as I am citing even in his day. I have made this a personal study more or less. I know from my personal knowledge of a large number of such cases. I will give one illustration. A few years ago I was compiling a little book on mining royalties. I was then on very friendly terms with the late Mr. D. A. Thomas, afterwards Lord Rhondda.

Captain CROOKSHANK: On a point of Order. In what way is the hon. Member's book related to the Supplementary Estimate?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is giving it as an example.

Mr. JONES: I got into touch with the late Lord Rhondda, who is admitted to have been, in his day, one of the greatest coal exporters in the country and a man who did a great deal, particularly in South Wales, to develop the mining industry.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not extend his example.

Mr. JONES: The net result of our interview was this; I put the question, what was the tendency among coalowners as colliery companies, of which he himself was a chief director and promoter of amalgamations. He told me definitely—I have it in a letter in his own hand—that the tendency was for each amalgamation of colliery owners to buy out the royalty rights of the minerals which they were going to develop and exploit. Therefore, they had every inducement to become the owners of these concerns. That tendency has grown ever since, not only in South Wales but in every coalfield in
England and Scotland that comes within the terms of this subvention. It is therefore, important that we should ascertain at first hand whether the colliery companies are making a true statement as to the equivalent royalty that might be paid. Every economist in the country is agreed that if accountants are given this important task of protecting the monies of the public of this country, they should have the power to compare the royalties of the colliery companies owning their own minerals with the royalties paid by adjoining colliery companies working the same seams under identical conditions.

Mr. BASIL PETO: On a point of Order. May I call attention to the Standing Order against repetition? The hon. Member is using exactly the same argument in the same terms, over and over again.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am quite aware of the Standing Order.

Mr. JONES: Although many hon. Members opposite may not appreciate the significance of the point I am making, I feel sure that the Minister in charge does. I know from my personal knowledge of him that he is very anxious to smooth over the crisis in the mining industry. If you give the miners a legitimate or an apparently legitimate notion that the coal owners are in any way dodging in this business, and that they are actually getting in individual cases out of this subvention monies to which they are not entitled, you are not helping to smooth matters. Therefore, we wart a specific guarantee from the Government that no colliery company will get a single penny of the subvention unless they are entitled to it. How can the accountants check any item when they have not the power to inspect all the books? The accountants have not that power now. The Secretary for Mines has admitted that.

Colonel LANE FOX: indicated dissent.

Mr. JONES: If the right hon. Gentleman can assure us from his personal knowledge that the accountants have the power and that he has given them instructions to exercise that power, no one will be more pleased than myself. But I have not yet had any assurance on that point. I am certain that he has not given such
instructions and that it requires more courage than the Government have to give such instructions. The Government are too closely linked up with the coalowners to exercise their duties in this direction on behalf of the taxpayers. As a penultimate point I ask the Secretary for Mines to ascertain whether his Department are prepared to consider the matter. The Commission is about to issue its report, and I am sure that if the Mines Department care to do it, they have the power to instruct the accountants right away. Will they do so?

Will they face the vested interest on their side? Will they challenge the royalty interests held by the colliery companies? If they do, it is time they joined us on this side of the House.

Colonel LANE FOX: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 101.

Division No. 19.]
AYES.
[10.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Dixey, A. C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Albery, Irving James
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jephcott, A. R.


Applin, Col. R. V. K.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Elveden, Viscount
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
England, Colonel A.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Atkinson, C.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
King, Captain Henry Doug'as


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Everard, W. Lindsay
Knox, Sir Alfred


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lamb, J. Q.


Balniel, Lord
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Fermoy, Lord
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'tn)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fielden, E. B.
Loder, J. de V.


Berry, Sir George
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Looker, Herbert William


Bethell, A.
Forrest, W.
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Betterton, Henry B.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lumley, L. R.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Fraser, Captain Ian
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Frece, Sir Walter de
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Blundell, F. N.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
MacIntyre, I.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Galbraith, J. F. W.
McLean, Major A.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Macmillan Captain H.


Brass, Captain W.
Gates, Percy
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Briggs, J. Harold
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gee, Captain R.
Macquisten, F. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maitland, Sir Arthur L. Steel-



Gower, Sir Robert
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Merriman, F. B.


Burman, J. B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moles, Thomas


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hanbury, C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Campbell, E. T.
Harland, A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Haslam, Henry C.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hawke, John Anthony
Neville, R. J.


Clarry, Reginald George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nuttall, Ellis


Cope, Major William
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Oakley, T.


Couper, J. B.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Hills, Major John Walter
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hilton, Cecil
Pennefather, Sir John


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Penny, Frederick George


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Homan, C. W. J.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cunliffe, Sir Joseph Herbert
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Phillpson, Mabel


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsden, E.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wells, S. R.


Remer, J. R.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Storry-Deans, R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Rye, F. G.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Salmon, Major I.
Sueter, Bear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wise, Sir Fredric


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Templeton, W. P.
Womersley, W. J.


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Savery, S. S.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wragg, Herbert


Skelton, A. N.
Waddington, R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.



Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smithers, Waldron
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Captain Margesson and Captain


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Viscount Curzon.


NOES.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Baker, Walter
Harris, Percy A.
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Clowes, S.
Livingstone, A. M.
Townend, A. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Connolly, M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wallhead, Richard C.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalton, Hugh
Maxton, James
Warne, G. H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Duntermilne)


Duncan, C.
Naylor, T. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon Sidney


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Owen, Major G.
Whiteley, W.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Fenby, T. D.
Paling, W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Riley, Ben



Groves, T.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Rose, Frank H.
Hayes.

Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £16,657, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 246.

Division No. 20.]
AYES.
[10.49 p.m.


Ammon, Charles George
Charleton, H. C.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Clowes, S.
Groves, T.


Baker, Walter
Cluse, W. S.
Grundy, T. W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Barnes, A.
Compton, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Barr, J.
Connolly, M.
Hardie, George D.


Batey, Joseph
Crawfurd, H. E.
Harris, Percy A.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Dalton, Hugh
Hastings, Sir Patrick


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hayday, Arthur


Broad, F. A.
Duncan, C.
Hayes, John Henry


Bromfield, William
Fenby, T. D.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Bromley, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hirst, G. H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gillett, George M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Buchanan, G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Riley, Ben
Tinker, John Joseph


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Ritson, J.
Townend, A. E.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Kelly, W. T.
Rose, Frank H.
Viant, S. P.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lansbury, George
Scurr, John
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sexton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


MacLaren, Andrew
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Whiteley, W.


Maxton, James
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Palin, John Henry
Snell, Harry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Paling, W.
Stamford, T. W.
Windsor, Walter


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stephen, Campbell
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)



Potts, John S.
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Purcell, A. A.
Taylor, R. A.
Mr. Warne and Mr. Charles


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.


Albery, Irving James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Jephcott, A. R.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Elveden, Viscount
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
England, Colonel A.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Atkinson, C.
Everard, W. Lindsay
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lamb, J. Q.


Balniel, Lord
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fermoy, Lord
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Fielden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Loder, J. de V.


Berry, Sir George
Forrest, W.
Looker, Herbert William


Sethell, A.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Betterton, Henry B.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lumley, L. R.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Frece, Sir Walter de
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Blundell, F. N.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Galbraith, J. F. W.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Ganzoni, Sir John
MacIntyre, I.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gates, Percy
McLean, Major A.


Brass, Captain W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macmillan, Captain H.


Briggs, J. Harold
Gee, Captain R.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Britain, Sir Harry
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Goff, Sir Park
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Burman, J. B.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Margesson, Captain D.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Meller, R. J.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hanbury, C.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Campbell, E. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moles, Thomas


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harland, A.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Haslam, Henry C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hawke, John Anthony
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Neville, R. J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cope, Major William
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Couper, J. B.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Nuttall, Ellis


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hills, Major John Walter
Oakley, T.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hilton, Cecil
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Owen, Major G.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Homan, C. W. J.
Pennefather, Sir John


Cunliffe, Sir Joseph Herbert
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Penny, Frederick George


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempsf'd)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Philipson, Mabel


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hurst, Gerald B.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Dixey, A. C.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Ramsden, E.




Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Smithers, Waldron
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Wells, S. R.


Remer, J. R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford Hereford)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Storry-Deans, R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Rye, F. G.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Salmon, Major I.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wise, Sir Fredric


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Templeton, W. P.
Womersley, W. J.


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Savery, S. S.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wragg, Herbert


Skelton, A. N.
Waddington, R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wallace, Captain D. E.



Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Captain Viscount Curzon and Lord




Stanley.


Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Colonel LANE FOX: claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."

CLASS VI.

ROYAL COMMISSIONS, ETC.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,225, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and other Expenses of Royal Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries, etc., including provision for Shorthand, and the Expenses of Surplus Stores, etc., Liquidation.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress: to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.